Friday, September 04, 2009

Scottish Govt's Legal Services Bill 'must do more' to break Law Society's grip on legal marketplace & give public wider choice over access to justice

ScottishGovernmentScottish Government announces Legal Services Bill but will it actually help consumers ? Scotland's closed shop legal services market is about to undergo a significant change from its centuries old format of monopolistic domination on the Scots public's access to justice, as the Scottish Governments "Legal Services Bill", designed to open up competition in the Scottish legal services market and give consumers more choice over who represents their legal interests, arrives at Holyrood later this month.

However, the long awaited legislation, which the Scottish Government claims, will "allow Scotland's legal profession to grow and compete, by removing outdated restrictions on business models while protecting the core values of the profession" seems to avoid a total restructuring and opening up of the legal services marketplace which many consumer organisations and law reformers have been campaigning for many years to achieve. There are more detailed announcements expected on the Legal Services Bill as it is introduced in Parliament, but critics of the proposals announced so far cite there is little mention of actual advantages in the legislation for fee paying consumers of legal services in Scotland and claim the bill itself is more about maintaining the monopolistic structure of Scotland's closed shop legal services market rather than opening it up to true competition.

Proposals announced by the Scottish Government include :

1. Allowing solicitors to secure external investment and business expertise and to combine with other professionals to offer legal services in new ways.

2. Remove restrictions on solicitors entering into business relationships with non-solicitors.

3. Allowing our leading commercial law firms to compete effectively with other UK firms and internationally.

4. Creating a robust regulatory framework in which the Scottish Government will appoint approved regulators who will regulate the new business structures

A spokesman for one of Scotland's consumer organisations said this morning : "The Scottish Government need to get the balance right between expanding competition in the legal services sector and addressing the historical issues of poor regulation of legal services in Scotland.

He continued : "We look forward to the bill's passage in the Scottish Parliament and the chance to add our views to the proposals contained in the bill. Hopefully the public will do likewise and add their experiences by way of submissions to the parliament, adding weight to the need of greater consumer protection in the legal services market."

There is evidence the Scottish Government do seem intent on making at least some changes to the way in which lawyers do business in Scotland, however there still seems to be too much focus on maintaining the present regulatory framework exclusively operated by the Law Society of Scotland which many people who have come into contact with, now regard with some justification as being completely corrupt and therefore ripe for change in this forthcoming piece of legislation.

Ian Smart Law Society PresidentLaw Society President Ian Smart was quick to remind us all the Society stands for as little change as possible and no changes to its role as self regulator of Scottish solicitors. The Law Society of Scotland were quick to jump on the bandwagon to maintain their influence over the Scottish Government's proposals, with Ian Smart, their President issuing the following release : “We will, on behalf of our membership, continue to engage with the Scottish Government and MSPs as the Bill progresses to ensure that those who might choose to provide legal services under an alternative business structure can be properly regulated and that robust consumer protections are put in place."

Ian Smart continued : “The Society is in favour of allowing alternative business structures which will encourage innovation within the legal services market and also present our members with the opportunity to adopt new practices which will allow their businesses to flourish both at home as well as elsewhere in the UK and overseas. However it's vitally important that proper consideration is given to access to justice issues. Ensuring access to legal advice and maintaining high standards among those delivering legal services are paramount."

Law Society of ScotlandLaw Society of Scotland is more of a danger to competition and free public choice of legal representation. There is little doubt from Mr Smart's statement, the Law Society of Scotland wishes to continue as the legal profession's dominant and singular self regulator, which it has been constantly lobbying Government and Holyrood to ensure its position as such remains. However, as the huge levels of very serious complaints against member law firms and solicitors show, the Law Society of Scotland has never been up to the job of regulating the legal profession's interests and protecting the public at the same time and the opportunity should now be taken to break up the Law Society's regulatory role from its representation of the profession at large - if the public are to be given the regulatory safeguards that consumers of many other services already have.

MacAskill tight lippedJustice Secretary MacAskill seen as too close to Scotland’s legal profession to give public better choice over access to justice reforms. A significant problem for consumers of legal services in Scotland and those promoting wider competition and better independent regulation is that Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill has invariably sided in the past with the Law Society of Scotland who wish to retain control over the public's choice of their legal representatives.

Is Justice Secretary MacAskill impartial enough to give consumers protection from poor legal services ?

I have written earlier reports on the preliminary proposals contained in the Legal Services bill (referred to earlier as the Legal Profession Bill), here : Lawyers monopoly on legal services set to last until 2011 as MacAskill's 'dithering consultation' delays wider access to justice for Scots and here : Legal Profession bill has little potential for change as Justice Secretary indicates no will to reform legal services

While the Justice Secretary might argue that "A strong and independent legal profession is part of the institutional framework of a modern democracy. The legal profession contributes to the Scottish economy with an estimated turnover of over £1 billion per annum." the fact is that both of his claims are at odds with what should be an individual's right to choose their own lawyer, rather than have a lawyer forced on them by a 'strong and independent and self regulated legal profession' - which is what we currently have in Scotland.

Why for instance, does the legal profession's perceived right to require to make huge profits from controlling the public's access to justice, access to the courts and access to legal services come into play against giving the public that right of choice we all enjoy in most other things we pay for ? The answer is of course, it should not ... but as we have seen before, Mr MacAskill (himself a solicitor) appears not to be impartial enough from the legal profession to free the public from being handcuffed to the Law Society and its poor regulation of legal services in Scotland which has in turn led to very poor standards and widespread corruption against clients by 'rogue lawyers'.

Neelie KroesEU Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes welcomes competition in legal services. A spokesman for the European Union Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes said today : "In general the Commission is in favour of competition in the area of professional services, including lawyers." The Commission also issued a report on the subject in 2005, which can be viewed here : Professional Services - Scope for more reformFollow-up to the Report on Competition in Professional Services

The 2005 report on competition in the legal services sector concluded that "More urgency by the majority of Member States to bring about systematic pro-competitive reform in this sector would bring about significant economic and consumer benefits. In practical terms, this means Member States taking ‘political ownership’ of this work at national level to drive forward the reform process."

Given the EU's conclusion in this regard, there should be more focus on benefits to the consumer in the Legal Services Bill, rather than simply trying to maintain the status quo and basically, window dress so that some changes benefitting legal firms can take place, and old powerful regulators maintain their long standing but ill deserved positions of power, whereas free public choice over legal representation seemingly remains elusive once again.

The EU's 2005 report did however recognise the problem of powerful regulators maintaining closed shop models, just as the Law Society of Scotland has done for years, concluding that : "The weight of tradition should not be underestimated as affecting the pace of change, and in many countries regulators fail to see how things can be done differently. Moreover, the professions themselves have in general not been actively promoting it. The current picture could also indicate that some countries have relatively weak regulatory oversight of the professions. This could be caused by the economic phenomenon of regulatory capture which is not uncommon especially in areas subject to self-regulation."

Regulatory capture, referred to in the EU report, defines as a term used to refer to situations in which a regulatory agency (such as the Law Society of Scotland) created to act in the public interest instead acts in favour of the commercial or special interests that dominate in the industry or sector it is charged with regulating. Regulatory capture is a form of government failure, as it can act as an encouragement for large firms to produce negative externalities.

There is little doubt that consumers in Scotland have for far too long been subject to the Law Society of Scotland's regulatory capture of access to justice and legal services, which must now be put to bed in the coming Legal Services Bill and the public given their own choice and say over who they wish to use (and pay for) to represent their legal interests.

41 comments:

Anonymous said...

Not much of a surprise to see Smart pop up to spoil everything.
BTW Does Lorna Jack still exist?
If Douglas Mill had still been Chief Exec his beetroot red face would have been all over this in the papers!

Anonymous said...

1. Allowing solicitors to secure external investment and business expertise and to combine with other professionals to offer legal services in new ways.

2. Remove restrictions on solicitors entering into business relationships with non-solicitors.

3. Allowing our leading commercial law firms to compete effectively with other UK firms and internationally.

4. Creating a robust regulatory framework in which the Scottish Government will appoint approved regulators who will regulate the new business structures

Where in all that tripe does it mention clients without whom these leeches would never earn a penny ?

No justice Kenny is good for lawyers but bad for people said...

Shouldnt this be renamed the Legal Services Protection Bill ?

Kenny Mac must be doing this so he has a job to go back to when turfed out of office hopefully soon !

Anonymous said...

If the video clip of MacAskill is anything to go by he is absolutely NOT impartial enough to protect consumers !

Anonymous said...

nicely put

Anonymous said...

This is how the English did it (3 years earlier)

http://www.legalweek.com/legal-week/news/1169394/legal-services-bill-prepares-royal-assent

Legal Services Bill prepares for Royal Assent
Author: Ben Mitchell
26 Oct 2007 | 15:37

The Government's controversial Legal Services Bill is on the brink of becoming law after the long-awaited legislation finally passed through Parliament this week.

The Bill completed the penultimate hurdle before its official enactment yesterday (29 October) and will receive Royal Assent next week.

The news brings to an end the tussle between the House of Commons and the House of Lords over the detail of the Bill, which was first introduced to the Lords last November.

The final version of the Bill includes changes to several key elements, including requiring the Lord Chancellor to consult with the Lord Chief Justice over the make-up of the Legal Services Board (LSB).

The need for consultation will be welcomed by commercial lawyers. Earlier this year, all five of the magic circle firms' senior partners, together with Bar Council chairman Geoffrey Vos, criticised Whitehall for the perceived lack of independence in the composition of the LSB. They said the Government risked undermining international confidence in the UK legal services market.

The LSB will act as an overarching regulator for both the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the Bar Standards Board with the ability to strip underperforming professional bodies of their powers.

The new-look Bill has also clarified that lawyers cannot be penalised for poor performance by both existing regulators and the inaugural Office for Legal Complaints.

The new legislation, most of which is likely to come into effect in 2011 or 2012, will give law firms a green light to form practices with other professionals, such as barristers and accountants, as well as attracting external investment or listing on the stock exchange.

Many top UK firms have already discussed funding tactics with a variety of investment houses, with names such as Cazenove, Catalyst, Fleming Family & Partners and Noble touted as roadshowing to firms. Proposals have moved beyond floating a law firm with investors keen for longer-term investment opportunities.

Over the next six months, professional services association the Managing Partners' Forum and specialist consultant Brand Finance will assign a brand value to many of the world's top firms in preparation for the changes.

Anonymous said...

A MESSAGE FOR IAN SMART YOU SAID,

“We will, on behalf of our membership, continue to engage with the Scottish Government and MSPs as the Bill progresses to ensure that those who might choose to provide legal services under an alternative business structure can be properly regulated (JUST LIKE YOU REGULATE YOUR OWN MEMBERS AT THE INFAMOUS LAW SOCIETY OF SCOTLAND) and that robust consumer protections are put in place."

WELL MR SMART YOUR LAST PHRASE "robust consumer protections are put in place." AS LONG AS THE LAW SOCIETY CONTROL ACCESS TO JUSTICE, AND COVER UP (REGULATE IS THE WRONG WORD APPLIED TO YOU) EVERY SCOT IS AT RISK. I WOULD TRUST YOU AS MUCH AS I WOULD TRUST HITLER NOT TO START A WAR.

YOU ALSO STATE “We will, on behalf of our membership, continue to engage with the Scottish Government and MSPs as the Bill progresses to ensure that those who might choose to provide legal services under an alternative business structure can be properly regulated". BY THIS YOU MEAN THOSE PROVIDING ALTERNATIVE LEGAL SERVICES ARE PROPERLY CONTROLLED BY THE LAW SOCIETY TO DO WHAT YOU HAVE ALWAYS DONE, PROTECT CROOKED LAWYERS AND CRUCIFY CLIENTS. THE CROOKED LAWYERS ARE ALL YOU CARE ABOUT MR SMART, WHY ARE YOU SILENT ABOUT CLIENT SUICIDES, SILENT ABOUT THE CROOKED LAWYERS IN THE NEWSPAPERS? ALL SELF REGULATORS SUFFER FROM THE SAME MALADY, CHRONIC DENIAL. I WOULD NOT TRUST YOU MR SMART OR ANY ONE OF YOUR 10,000 CROOKED COLLEAGUES, AND I URGE THE PUBLIC TO BEWARE. IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC THINK THE LAW SOCIETY OF SCOTLAND OR SCOTTISH LEGAL COMPLAINTS COMMISSION OR THE SCOTTISH SOLICITORS DICIPLINE TRIBUNAL WILL PROTECT THEM THEY ARE FOOLISH INDEED.

Think about this, your lawyer ruins your life. You have no choice but to complain to other lawyers about this. No member of the public is safe and the Alex Salmond's of this world do not care because lawyers will not ruin him, he is one of the club. If politicians wanted to protect the public they would END SELF REGULATION NOW.

Anonymous said...

Ensuring access to legal advice and maintaining high standards among those delivering legal services are paramount."

CORRECT MR SMART BUT HIGH STANDARDS MEANS KEEPING THE LAWYER OUT OF THE COMPLAINTS PROCESS.

YOU DO MAINTAIN HIGH STANDARDS MR SMART WHEN IT COMES TO PROTECTING CROOKED LAWYERS, THAT IS YOUR IDEA OF HIGH STANDARDS.

Anonymous said...

Well doesnt it look like the Law Society are pulling puppet MacAskill's strings ?

How about we as the voters get a say in all this ?

Anonymous said...

10,000 lawyers in Scotland : Sent them all to Afghanistan and let the Taliban sort them out.

MacAskill : Send him and his fans back to Libya where they can act out their dreams and play at being Scottish Taliban in the desert.

Anonymous said...

Is Justice Secretary MacAskill impartial enough to give consumers protection from poor legal services ?

No he is not, he will do all he can to keep things the way they are.

I would never complain to any of the current complaints bodies about a lawyer because I know I would be wasting my time. I know self regulation and self protection are the same, that is why self regulators can do what they want with impunity. Mr Smart and his 10,000 will have to have their self regulatory status taken from them. No client will have the faintest possibility of justice against a lawyer until this happens.

Anonymous said...

Yes you are quite right Peter.If people want to choose who represents their legal interests then that is a matter for them and not the Law Society.

Good writing as always.

Anonymous said...

While the Justice Secretary might argue that "A strong and independent legal profession is part of the institutional framework of a modern democracy.

This justice system Mr MacAskill must not be allowed to self regulate because victims of crooked lawyers are ignored, and banned from justice by the profession that are supposed to stand for justice.

Justice is simply fairness, and having lawyers investigating client complaints about other lawyers, is injust. The legal profession do not care the current system is corrupt so long as they maintain it. The Law Society of Scotland is the organisation or causal link, that prevents clients obtaining justice and allows the perpetrators of injustice to carry on practising. It is a scandal that this situation is not being tackled head on by the legislature by politicians stripping the lawyers of their self regulatory power.

Anonymous said...

This Bill is all about extending opportunity for solicitors to make more money, while ensuring they remain effectively unaccountable for any abuses - courtesy of the Law Society of Scotland being allowed to maintain it's monopolistic control.

Anyone interested in reform of self regulation or the establishment of consumer rights and protection should look to Europe, the Scottish Parliament will give you nothing.

Anonymous said...

British & Scottish Government take note.

"More urgency by the majority of Member States to bring about systematic pro-competitive reform in this sector would bring about significant economic and consumer benefits. (LAWYERS DO NOT WANT CONSUMER BENEFITS). In practical terms, this means Member States taking ‘political ownership’ of this work at national level to drive forward the reform process."

As Supra National law takes precidence over member state law the EU should oversee this, no doubt many Scottish politicians will be seeking an opt out clause to protect the Scottish Legal profession.

Anonymous said...

The Law Society of Scotland and the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission are the sworn enemies of every client. Hitler's SS were his (Shutzstaffeln) protection squad.

The Law Society of Scotland and the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission are every lawyers, and Royal Sun Alliance Shutzstaffeln. There is one difference, so far they do not have military power. But in my view they are totally evil like the Nazi's.

Anonymous said...

We can see what the English reforms have led to in a recent article from the Guardian published at;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/aug/21/chelsea-41m-mortgage-fraud

The opening paragraphs sums the situation up succinctly and read;

"Fears of widespread fraud on the mortgage books of Britain's high-street lenders emerged after Chelsea building society today admitted that it had uncovered fraud of up to £41m.

Mortgage professionals such as brokers, valuers and solicitors are suspected of colluding in the fraud by inflating prices on buy-to-let flats in northern cities, raising concern that other lenders could suffer similar losses.

The properties involved are sold and resold among a group of landlords, with the price inflated each time by a fraudulent valuation."

Errr.....but Scottish Solicitors would never act in such a way, would they?

Anonymous said...

A hell of a lot more should be done than just whats announced.Why just allow lawyers to attract investment when its us the clients who have to pay for their rubbish work who need protecting ?

I am going to write to my msp and the parliament when this bill comes in so keep us informed of whats going on please !

Anonymous said...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8239572.stm

BBC NEWS
Straw admits Lockerbie trade link

Trade and oil played a part in the decision to include the Lockerbie bomber in a prisoner transfer deal, Jack Straw has admitted.

We knew that Jack.

Anonymous said...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8233009.stm

BBC NEWS

UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband has confirmed the government did not want to see Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi die in a Scottish prison. (HONESTY AT LAST DAVID)

But he insisted there had been no "double dealing" and told the BBC the UK had "never expressed a different view" to the US over the issue.

He also insisted "no pressure" had been placed on the Scottish government ahead of its decision to release Megrahi.

Megrahi was freed earlier this month, eight years into a life sentence imposed for his part in the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie in December 1988, killing 270 people.

The Scottish government, which deals with criminal justice matters in Scotland, (AND PROTECTS LAWYERS JUST LIKE KENNY MACASKILL) said the decision had been made on compassionate grounds, as Megrahi has terminal cancer. (WE BELIEVE YOU KENNY).

Anonymous said...

A thieving lawyer I know just up the road had his house flooded out yesterday.Papers from his garage were floating all down the road and some of the locals picked them up for reading.Cant wait to hear all the tales tonight when I go out for a drink!

Anonymous said...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/humber/8238723.stm

A GP who had sex with a patient and co-worker in his surgery has been struck off as a doctor.

Dr Michael Rusling, 48, was found guilty of misconduct by a General Medical Council (GMC) panel after he admitted the affairs.

The misconduct took place while he was a GP at the Sydenham House Group Practice in Hull, East Yorkshire.

The GMC said Dr Rusling's affairs and a police caution he received for assault meant he could no longer work as a GP.

The doctor was cautioned after pushing over his wife, who has since divorced him, outside their home in Beverley in February 2007.

His affair with a married grandmother, known as Patient A, began in 2006 and continued for seven months, the panel heard.

Your behaviour demonstrated a reckless and blatant disregard for the principles at the heart of the medical profession: being trustworthy and acting with integrity Roland Doven, GMC panel chairman

The pair once had sex in Dr Rusling's consultation room while her husband waited outside.

The GP also had an eight-month affair with a woman who worked at the surgery, known as Miss C.
-----------------------------------
Doctors are quite a perverted group, this is the tip of the iceberg.

Anonymous said...

Lawyers are so dishonest they cannot even be honest with themselves, about their own dishonesty. A trait present in all self regulators.

Take another example, Harold Shipman believed he had done nothing wrong, but the evidence pointed to the opposite conclusion.

Douglas Mill, swore on his granny's grave he had not instructed law firms to repudiate clients who wanted to sue their original lawyer.

These people would say laypersons had mental health problems. That is rich.

It is time the Scottish Government crushed self regulators, and protect the laypersons of our country.

Anonymous said...

Prosecutor avoids criminal record.

Anne Hart 38, from Dundee found drunk in her car by police on the 12th of January 2009.

She admitted being drunk while in charge of the vehicle. The Court of Appeal agreed she would have been unlikley to drive while over the limit.

Another example of the legal profession looking after their own.

Anonymous said...

The one constant in an ever changing universe = Crooked Lawyers !

Anonymous said...

Your behaviour demonstrated a reckless and blatant disregard for the principles at the heart of the medical profession: being trustworthy and acting with integrity Roland Doven, GMC panel chairman.

There are two times patients must never trust any doctor,

If you are in litigation against your employer.

If you are a threat to the reputation of a doctor.

Because your doctor, lawyer, employer are all insured by the same insurance company. The result of this is that no employer ever injuries an employee.

This is a litigation scam your lawyer will not tell you about because he is making money from the Legal Aid, but YOU CANNOT WIN DAMAGES.

Anonymous said...

http://sacl.info/crown_office_letter.jpg

Readers please check the above from the Scotland Against Crooked Lawyers website, a lawyer who is a serial crook did not get prosecuted even though the Crown Office realise the seriousness of his crime.

Here are the others I know about.

Procurator Fiscal Colin Boyd not prosecuted.

Anne Hart 38 a prosecutor from Dundee not prosecuted as shown above, drunk in charge of a vehicle.

One law for the laypersons of Scotland and exemption from prosecution for the lawyers. They call this a Justice System, and the Scottish Government tinker with it rather that make serious changes to protect the public.

Other cases.

Haggarty the Legal Aid board lawyer caught in public toilets with a rent boy. Another lawyer Paul McBride got Haggarty off the hook.

Douglas Mill had to resign from the Law Society, Kenneth Pritchard formerly of the Law Society now a Sheriff, Phillip Yelland, sent a ruined client to a law firm who are part of the legal defence union, to help him sue his original lawyer who ruined him. They did what they do best with complaining clients, string the client along until the client is chronically exhausted and depressed. The client killed himself with a shotgun. These three men (are criminals) were protecting crooked lawyers, the result no charges. On the contrary they all still work, Yelland is still the Client Relations Officer for the Law Society of Scotland, that hub of criminality that protect crooked lawyers and the MacAskill's of this world turn a blind eye.

Perhaps Peter you can compile a list of legal figures who have avoided prosecution because they have legal friends and politicians in the right places. That would be a revealing article. Secretive organisations are sinister, and the Law Society of Scotland is at the top of the sinister list.

It seems especially the Law Society heirarchy are immune from prosecution.

Anonymous said...

A GP who had sex with a patient and co-worker in his surgery has been struck off as a doctor.

He will be reinstated at a later date and moved to another practice. that is standard procedure, I am surprised he was struck off at all.

Anonymous said...

"regulatory capture" perfectly describes the Law Society of Scotland's attitude towards our access to justice.

As Scots we must take that power away from lawyers even if MacAskill doesnt want to.

Anonymous said...

Lord Advocate
Lord Falconer
Lord Gill
Lord Hamilton
Lord Hardie
Lord Justice Campbell
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
Lord McCluskey
Lord Osborne
Lord Penrose
Lord President
Lord Reed
Lord Wheatley

Are they all above the law? I think so, if a client cannot take an ordinary lawyer to court, this question is answered.

Anonymous said...

BBC NEWS

"I spoke to Dr Shipman, I can't really remember what he said because I was so distressed, but he did imply that my mother had been ill, she'd been to see him the day before, he'd been to see her that day, and she had died after he left, and I was kind of comforted by that."

Angela Woodruff remembers the sudden death of her mother Kathleen Grundy in June 1998. A former mayoress of Hyde, near Manchester, she was just one of Harold Shipman's many victims.

Impossible to imagine now, at the time, Dr Shipman was a highly regarded and well-liked doctor. "My mother thought he was wonderful," says Angela Woodruff.

Paul Horrocks, editor of the Manchester Evening News, recalls his reporters being insulted and spat at by a community which could not believe that Dr Shipman could have harmed anybody.

WE ARE BROUGHT UP TO TRUST AND RESPECT DOCTORS, AND THAT IS POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS.

WHAT WILL THE NEXT DR SHIPMAN LOOK LIKE. PATIENTS ADORED THIS GP AND HE WAS EVIL INCARNATE. HOW DO WE REALLY KNOW WHAT OUR DOCTOR IS LIKE? WHO WILL BE THE NEXT VICTIM?

Anonymous said...

Page last updated at 12:19 GMT, Thursday, 12 February 2009

Are patients safer after Shipman?
Harold Shipman

'Fundamentally flawed'

It is now 10 years since the family doctor was charged with the murder of 15 of his patients.

In fact Shipman had used loopholes in the medical system to kill more than 215 of his patients, successfully avoiding detection for many years. (SELF REGULATORS USE SELF REGULATION AS THE LOOPHOLE, BE IT LAW, MEDICINE OR ACCOUNTANCY).

The subsequent four-year public inquiry, which was chaired by senior judge Dame Janet Smith, exposed many serious deficiencies and led to recommendations concerned with preventing another serial killer. (HAVE THEY BEEN IMPLEMENTED? NO, SUCH IS THE POWER OF THE MEDICAL PROFESSION).

But it also identified a need for significant change in attitudes, in systems and in practice, to better protect patients. (THE NHS PRIMARY PURPOSE IS TO PROTECT CROOKED MEDICS).

The doctors' regulatory body, the General Medical Council (GMC) came in for savage criticism, described by Dame Janet Smith as "fundamentally flawed". (YES JUST LIKE THE LAW SOCIETY OF SCOTLAND).

YES ALL SELF REGULATORS ARE FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED BECAUSE THEY CANNOT BEAR TO SEE WHAT IS HAPPENING IF A DOCTOR OR LAWYER WILL BE RUINED AS A RESULT.

I THINK MANY DOCTORS WOULD TURN A BLIND EYE TO A COLLEAGUE MURDERING A PATIENT, PROVIDED IT COULD NOT COME BACK ON THEM.

rules but not for the rulers said...

Good analysis and I'm pleased to see the EU is looking over their shoulders at last.
You might also be interested to learn the Scotsman ran a similar story on ABS today :
http://business.scotsman.com/legalissues/Legal-sector-bill-may-see.5622140.jp although their version also seems to confirm the Bill as intended is more about tinkering with the legal profession rather than actually giving the public free choice of lawyers as you have been writing about.

Keep up the good work !

Anonymous said...

Mr Smith retired lawyer, husband of Lady Smith stated

"I have read through the Report and it is quite clear that it is of only limited value because of time (and funding ?) constraints and the fact that the claimants interviewed were all frequent flyers."

Just like Dr Shipman, Mr Smith only sees what he wants to see, and is in total denial like all self regulators. What are you frightened of Mr Smith, if your profession is honest as you would have us believe. Mentally I know like all self regulators, Mr Smith cannot be reached, because they believe they have the right to deal with complaints from clients and cover everything up.

The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, is a corrupt organisation because lawyers cannot see any criminality in their colleagues. It is criminally injust to have people with total power, deciding if a lawyer has ruined a client. It beggars belief this system has lasted until now.

The public still have nowhere to turn if their lawyer is crooked, and the lawyer still has nothing to worry about. No wonder they are desperate to keep things the way they are. This system is a great business model for lawyers, maximum profits and no independent accountability.

Clients the victims, lives ruined with no legal remedy. You lawyers call this a justice system. Criminals that is what you are.

Anonymous said...

More hopeless legislation from SG which doesnt stand a chance of doing anything for anyone except the back pockets of lawyers.
I'm beginning to think its the Law Society who is running the country instead of politicians !

Anonymous said...

4. Creating a robust regulatory framework in which the Scottish Government will appoint approved regulators who will regulate the new business structures

Considering the last attempt at this (SLCC) there is no chance anyone other than the Law Society will be "appointed" to regulate legal services after abs comes in.

Anonymous said...

From an earlier article by Mr Cherbi.

Reprimanded lawyers to have records wiped clean after 'muddle'
MICHAEL HOWIE AND JOHN ROBERTSON

ABOUT 250 solicitors reprimanded by the Law Society of Scotland are to have their records wiped clean after the regulator was told its disciplinary sanction was illegal.

The society yesterday said it had taken the "regrettable" decision to clean the slate for hundreds of lawyers found guilty of unsatisfactory conduct in the past three years.

The body took the decision to withdraw the "unsatisfactory conduct" charge after a disciplined lawyer launched a bid to overturn the ruling.

Opposition MSPs last night branded the situation a "disaster" and said it made the case for a root-and-branch review of the way lawyers are policed vital.

The Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman, meanwhile, said the regulation of solicitors was "a muddle" and urgently called for fresh legislation.
===================================
Even with the Law Society of Scotland and the new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission purporting to protect clients, I urge all clients to regard their lawyer as a criminal. A profession that have been criminals from victorian times and earlier are not going to change their spots. A lawyer is a human predator, looking to make a fast buck because the organisations above will protect them. These parasites ruin their clients, because they know there is a high probability their Obergruppen Fuhrer's at the Law Society will cover everything up. Lawyers clients have no legal protection, because lawyers are a pack of thieves, who look after each other, from law school to the grave.

Anonymous said...

Very interesting to learn just how bad the law in Scotland really is.
After Lockerbie could anyone trust this Mr MacAskill with his hands on justice ?
I think not.

Anonymous said...

A lawyer can solicit a teenage boy in public and another lawyer saves his ass.

SLAB Board member Paul McBride asked Crown Office to drop charges against Haggarty. It also emerged from the Sunday Mail's expose that Paul McBride QC, a senior board member of the Scottish Legal Aid Board was representing Haggarty on the criminal charges of soliciting a teenage boy in public, McBride proceeding to ask the Crown Office to drop the charges against his client, on the grounds 'there was not enough evidence to convict', and now the Procurator Fiscal in the case has decided against court proceedings and will handle the case by way of a fiscal fine or other means, in order no doubt to avoid too much bad publicity for Haggarty and McBride, both well known members of Scotland's legal profession.

Another case of lawyers looking after lawyers. A member of the public would have faced court proceedings, but no lawyer would try to get him off with a measly fiscal fine. Some justice, Haggarty. Mr McBride would not help the victim of a crooked lawyer but jumps to help a lawyer in trouble, some justice system, and there will be more lawyers out there ready to step in to help their colleagues out of the S***.

Anonymous said...

Oh god !
The minute I hear Ian Smart on about something I usually go out the door or switch off.What an awful choice of President this time around considering all we are facing including of course YOU !

Anonymous said...

last comment

me too!