Thursday, March 27, 2014

Fees please, not Justice: Courts Reform (Scotland) Bill encounters more opposition from lawyers vested interests in hearings at Scottish Parliament

Reforming Scotland’s courts for easier public access is opposed by legal profession. SCOTLAND’S “Victorian” civil justice system will be turned into even more of a train wreck” than it currently is, by the Scottish Government’s proposed Courts Reform (Scotland) Bill, according to representatives of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers who faced the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee earlier this week. The proposals to slightly widen Scots access to justice which are currently under consideration by the Scottish Parliament's Justice Committee were originally recommended by the current Lord President, Lord Brian Gill in his 2009 Scottish Civil Courts Review.

The latest opposition from the vested interests of the legal profession to the planned changes to Scotland’s inaccessible courts come after last week’s evidence from the Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates who are both traditionally opposed to any reforms to the courts which allow the public greater and easier access to justice without having to go through expensive solicitors and QCs.

The overall tone of all opposition currently put before msps against the planned changes to the courts boils down to this – don’t allow people to access justice on the cheap, or do it themselves without a battalion of expensive lawyers and other so-called legal professionals.

The coverage from Tuesday’s session of the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee is available here :

Courts Reform (Scotland) Bill Justice Committee - Scottish Parliament: 25th March 2014

One of the more controversial aspects of the Courts Reform bill, that of transferring most of the Court of Session's existing workload to the sheriff court by allowing sheriff courts to hear cases up to the value of £150,000, has drawn special ire from lawyers and advocates who claim the sheriff courts are currently overwhelmed with work and cannot cope with the increased workload.

However, the more obvious factor in many from the legal profession opposing the switch from Scotland’s Court of Session to the sheriff courts is that of fees.

It is well known solicitors, law firms and advocates, both junior & senior counsel would rather operate in the expensive exclusive and tightly controlled environment of the Court of Session in Edinburgh rather than scuttle around Scotland having to attend cases and possibly pick up a lot less in fees.

The Scottish Government have included in the bill plans for a specialist personal injury court which would take many of the cases being transferred from the Court of Session. However, msps heard more from lawyers who attacked this plan as being "seriously underfunded".

In further evidence, Mr Ronnie Conway, who is the Scottish co-ordinator of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers also maintained that projected savings to the legal aid fund were "illusory" because 85% of legally aided cases were successful and costs were recovered from the defender.

Laughably, Alan Rogerson of the Forum of Scottish Claims Managers, told msps that insurers wanted cases to settle rather than ending up in litigation. Not really. Not if it the claim has anything to do with the Master Policy or is a negligence case involving a lengthening list of professions and public bodies.

The Law Society of Scotland and Faculty of Advocates have previously given evidence against the reforms, which are also opposed by trade unions for the effect they are said to be likely to have on damages claims brought by their members. Typically, the legal profession has come out against the court reforms, with both the Law Society of Scotland & Faculty of Advocates opposing the changes. However, Citizens Advice Scotland and the consumer body Which? are among those who support the plans, on the ground that they would simplify the process of litigation.

The Scottish Government issued a Press Release earlier this week showing that while the number of civil cases being heard at sheriff court level has been declining – down 10 per cent between 2011-12 and 2012-13, a 43 per cent drop since 2008-09, the number of civil cases being heard at the Court of Session has remained steady. Personal injury cases accounted for 79 per cent of cases raised in the General Department of Court of Session .

Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Kenny MacAskill said: “The latest civil law statistics underline why we need to reform Scotland’s courts and in particular ensure that the right cases are heard in the right courts, at the right time. As highlighted by Lord Gill, our civil justice courts have remained relatively unchanged for more than a generation and need to be made more effective and efficient.”

“At present too many cases, particularly lower value personal injury cases, are being raised in the Court of Session – clogging up the system and resulting in higher costs and delays for the parties involved. Through our court reforms we will ensure such cases can be heard at a new, national specialist personal injury court, where they can be dealt with more swiftly at a lower cost. This will have little impact on the sheriff courts themselves – representing only a three per cent transfer of civil cases – but will have a considerable impact on the Court of Session, enabling it to focus on more complex cases.”

20 comments:

Anonymous said...

Nothing will change if the lawyers dont want it to and it sounds like they are right at home at that justice committee

Anonymous said...

There must have been intolerable suffering inflicted on the people of Scotland over the decades and even centuries by this profession. Assets stolen, cover ups, wills etc they are legalized robbers. At least people today know what they are up against and those in the know stay well clear.

Anonymous said...

The common denominator theme is always NOT about Justice but about COST?

Yet, the lawyers, assisted by the Courts have pushed their cases to be heard in the Court of Session rather than being heard in the Sheriff Court?

Cases before the Court of Session is just an excuse to attach them onto the gravy train, where everyone jumps on board for the ride, your lawyer, their Edinburgh lawyer, Junior Counsel and sometimes even Senior Counsel?

This is a study of how to skin the cat, rob the silver and fill their boots all rolled into one greedy opportunity?

The lawyers and the politicians simply cannot be trusted to decide what is in the best interests of the Scottish People, as everyone knows by now that it is the Law Society of Scotland who are pulling the strings of the puppets to get what they want?

Access to justice is easy by adopting the following remedies:-

a) legislate for a salary cap for Scottish lawyers of £50 per hour, with each fee note to be accompanied by a detailed specified costing?

b) abolish the Edinburgh lawyer fraud?

c) make it easy to prosecute Scottish lawyers who lie, cheat and steal?

d) make Sheriffs and Judges do an honest days work, making sure they work 9am - 5.30 with a half hour lunch break (less chance to have wine with lunch)?

e) make Sheriffs and Judges declare their interests and be accountable for their decisions, instead of the secrecy and contemptuous system we currently have to endure?

f) have all Legal Aid payment requests checked, approved & signed-off by the Client before they are submitted to the Scottish Legal Aid Board for payment, putting a stop to this fraud saving £Millions?

After just one year the whole Justice System would be transformed for the better, with all of the crooked lawyers starved out of existence and where the Scottish Public could once again begin to trust the Scottish Justice System again?

Anonymous said...

Reforming Scotland’s courts for easier public access is opposed by legal profession...............Oh yes Lenin argued that the final stage of capitalism is monopoly and he was right. But this is a different kind of monopoly which discriminates against the Scottish people.

It is all about money. These lawyers and their MSP protectors are the most unjust people in this country. Reforming this system to provide access to justice for the layperson would diminish the lawyers ££££££££££££££££££. The real question is this, who is in charge, our elected representatives or a small powerful minority. Clearly it is the latter so this proves democracy does not mean equal rights and freedom. Lawyers are action killers, they stop people from taking legal action when it suits their vested interests. In fact our MSP's are responsible for this domination and discrimination by law.

Anonymous said...

In the Scottish System, I wonder if there is a need for Scottish lawyers anymore?

They charge so much for so little result one wonders if there is any point in someone hiring a lawyer unless the amount of money being sought is in excess of £50,000.00?

This would have the effect of getting rid of about 75% of Scottish lawyers the bulk of which are just lazy paper shufflers anyway, leaving behind the 20-25% who have genuine skill and who are deserving of their fees?

In place of these dross Scottish lawyers there would be an opening for enterprising businesses who would offer a dispute resolution/mediation service, which was affordable, quick and devoid of Scottish lawyers?

A win win solution for the Scottish Public and business?

Maybe these mouth foaming Scottish lawyers (the scourge of Scottish Society) could retrain as clean-up-crew for cleaning up Scottish rivers, beaches and the countryside in general, thereby providing a Public Service and creating a better Karma to make up for their dodgy past?

Anonymous said...

You are quite right, this is all about fees and vested interests in Edinburgh wanting to keep business among the parochial, selfish and self serving legal community there - and to hell with anyone out side that little parish.

It would only get worse under what is laughingly referred to as 'independence'.

Anonymous said...

Another of these cosy club discussions between lawyers and lawyers!I dont see or hear anyone there who is really bothered about anyone being able to go to a court without being turned over for everything they have.

Anonymous said...

I see in the Hamilton Advertiser that the lecturer who was in litigation against Motherwell College has lost in that the original ruling was upheld. Not surprised I know from personal experience how all these cases go, the judiciary protecting their insurers. Never try to sue your employer, this case went on for at least fifteen years, the injured persons always have their injuries covered up by doctors and lawyers. The Legal Aid gravy train for them, they are all inhuman. You see folks it is all about [fees please] never justice.

Never trust inhuman lawyer scum, because that is what they all are. The litigation arrangements are that they all share the insurer the client is claiming against and even if this were not the case they still cover injuries up. That is where the profits lie, I wonder what shares the lawyers have in the insurance network that they repudiate a register of interests.

Anonymous said...

Most Health and Safety is reactive, they state everything was risk assessed after they receive notification of litigation from the clients lawyer. But unbeknown to many clients they all share the same insurers so that the lawyers and other crooks milk the legal aid and dump the client without going to court.


To give a separate example on a construction contract surveyors only get into the contract terms when a claim comes into the office that accused the surveyors company of delays which cost the other side money.

I tell you all the truth, if someone is injured at work and the injury depends on doctors opinions they will receive £0.00 compensation. Ask your lawyer if he shares the same insurer as your employer, if he says no he is a liar.

Litigation is money for doctors, lawyers, employers, judges and f**k the client all of these cases go the same way and they know you have been injured but they are all against you including your GP. He shares the same insurer too. It is all about fees please. If you are currently suing your employer you can leave a message later on this blog stating you got £0.00 been there that's how I know.

Anonymous said...

Alan Rogerson of the Forum of Scottish Claims Managers, told msps that insurers wanted cases to settle rather than ending up in litigation.
===================================
Bullshit insurers want to settle nothing, get real it's their money. Litigation is legal aid reward for lawyers fees, fees, fees for them [no damages for you], don't trust them they pay into the Scottish Claims managers insurers. Litigation is controlled by a cartel, the client and only the client is on the clients side. Everyone else shares the same insurance company. They probably own shares in the insurers.

Anonymous said...

It is not the Court's that need reform it's the people who run them that have lost the plot?

The whole system of justice in Scotland is broken?

A reorganisation is just using the same crooks to work things a bit differently and smacks of another conning of the Scottish People, like the LPLA Act 2007, where they tell the Scottish Public what they want to hear, to make them think that change is for the good, whereas it's the same old faces up to the same old dodges regardless of this tinkering?

They must think we are buttoned up the back?

Anonymous said...

Cabinet Secretary for the Law Society, Kenny MacAskill does not care about the people of this country. He is loyal to lawyers.

Anonymous said...

Keep up the excellent reporting DOI team. You are a credit to Scotland unlike our politicians who bend for the Law Society. Like Mr Cherbi I and many others have been through the Law Society wringer, where rights are stripped from people. All they want is money, they don't give a damn about the public, they see us as stock to be abused for their enrichment. I hope all readers tell their friends and colleagues about this crooked setup so they read A Diary of Injustice to be educated. Better to learn from us than the hard was.

All the best DOI.

Anonymous said...

Scotland's lawyers want to keep being allowed to ruin members of the public. In my opinion they are our enemies.

Anonymous said...

One of the more controversial aspects of the Courts Reform bill, that of transferring most of the Court of Session's existing workload to the sheriff court by allowing sheriff courts to hear cases up to the value of £150,000, has drawn special ire from lawyers and advocates who claim the sheriff courts are currently overwhelmed with work and cannot cope with the increased workload.
===================================================
Of course there is increasing workload. Remember it is in the lawyers interests to delay, delay, delay. The system rewards delays and then rewards the crooks who stole clients assets of covered up their injuries. Where do they get their power from, themselves, who do they answer to, themselves. No wonder the system is corrupt and extortionate.

Anonymous said...

The Law Society of Scotland,solicitors,SSDT SLCC Counsel the whole lot of them are in the same league as the Mafia it is one big 'happy' family screwing over genuine people with genuine cases, and it will never stop because they all think they are above the law, it is sickening to see. Access to Justice does not exist, just a bunch of crooks lining each others pockets and they have no conscious in doing so.How many times more do we have to read in the press about them and their crooked ways and nothing is ever done to them.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
There must have been intolerable suffering inflicted on the people of Scotland over the decades and even centuries by this profession. Assets stolen, cover ups, wills etc they are legalized robbers. At least people today know what they are up against and those in the know stay well clear.

27 March 2014 23:30
£££££££££££££££££

Scottish Legal Mafia

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
I see in the Hamilton Advertiser that the lecturer who was in litigation against Motherwell College has lost in that the original ruling was upheld. Not surprised I know from personal experience how all these cases go, the judiciary protecting their insurers. Never try to sue your employer, this case went on for at least fifteen years, the injured persons always have their injuries covered up by doctors and lawyers. The Legal Aid gravy train for them, they are all inhuman. You see folks it is all about [fees please] never justice.

Never trust inhuman lawyer scum, because that is what they all are. The litigation arrangements are that they all share the insurer the client is claiming against and even if this were not the case they still cover injuries up. That is where the profits lie, I wonder what shares the lawyers have in the insurance network that they repudiate a register of interests.

28 March 2014 19:22
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

More like Fees or else...

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Cabinet Secretary for the Law Society, Kenny MacAskill does not care about the people of this country. He is loyal to lawyers.

28 March 2014 22:05
-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-

He's loyal to Scottish lawyers over people!

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...
One of the more controversial aspects of the Courts Reform bill, that of transferring most of the Court of Session's existing workload to the sheriff court by allowing sheriff courts to hear cases up to the value of £150,000, has drawn special ire from lawyers and advocates who claim the sheriff courts are currently overwhelmed with work and cannot cope with the increased workload.
===================================================
Of course there is increasing workload. Remember it is in the lawyers interests to delay, delay, delay. The system rewards delays and then rewards the crooks who stole clients assets of covered up their injuries. Where do they get their power from, themselves, who do they answer to, themselves. No wonder the system is corrupt and extortionate.

29 March 2014 15:21
£££££££££££££££££

Here is a starter for ten...

Where there is a Summary Case in Scotland, this is where a defendant is being prosecuted by the State or Crown and there is a Sole Sheriff who hears the case?

Statistically speaking, how many of these Summary Cases are successfully prosecuted and how many accused are found to be not guilty?

A: Zero are found to be not guilty and 100% are found guilty?

Ergo, why the pretence of the defendant having to employ a lawyer & an Edinburgh lawyer & Junior Counsel & maybe a Senior Counsel, all of which will be on the SLAB take and the commensurate time this case has taken up Court time (which is strung-out for an even longer time in order to extort more money from the take, free cash system)?

This has nothing to do with the defendant's Right to representation and to preserve their access to justice under the European Convention for Human Rights?

It is all for show, as the defendant has no prospect whatsoever of getting justice or a fair trial as all Scottish Summary convictions are made in spite of any defence proving innocence?

Would it not be better instead for a modicum of truth to pervade the stinking fraud that is the Justice System in Scotland, where all Summary Cases are instead called Counsel Practise Cases, where for experience, an apprentice Counsel can practise their craft in a Court environment, with the caveat that they cannot muck up the defendant's chances because the defendant has zero chance?