SNP says ‘Tesco Law’ is not suited to Scottish society
SNP justice spokesman Kenny MacAskill has said the party will not seek to introduce so-called "Tesco Law" north of the border, should it take power at Holyrood.
He was commenting on the party's policies towards the legal profession, which are broadly outlined in its election manifesto.
South of the border, of course, external investors such as supermarkets and banks are being allowed to own and run law firms for the first time. Practices will also be able to float and appoint non-lawyer partners, and English barristers and solicitors will be able to form partnerships.
"MacClementi", a working party report on Scotland's legal services market commissioned by the Scottish Executive and published early last year, was widely viewed as a damp squib in respect of opening up the market to greater competition. This has split the profession, with some eminent lawyers in favour of the new freedoms and others hostile.
Asked if he would seek to legislate to allow any or all of the freedoms enshrined under the general term "Tesco Law", MacAskill responded: "Further investigation is needed. Tesco Law is to be avoided as it would not suit Scottish society. However, some opportunity for successful Scottish firms to compete globally is appropriate."
| Protection of those pursuing personal injury claims must be assured | |
|
MacAskill did give a commitment to implement fully reforms scrapping self-regulation enshrined in the recently passed Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Bill, including the creation of an independent Scottish Legal Complaints Commission to address complaints of poor service by lawyers.
Some consumers have expressed concern about his commitment to that cause, since he himself is a qualified solicitor and was a partner in an Edinburgh law firm until 2000.
Asked if the SNP was committed to the full implementation of the bill as recently passed by parliament, however, MacAskill answered with a simple "yes". He said he has no plans to alter any aspect of the reforms. The SNP is taking a cautious line on the vexed issue of Scotland's shockingly low threshold for small claims. It is now nine years since it was
recommended that the limit be lifted to £1500 from £750, but nothing has been done.
Scottish consumer groups continue to despair that for people wanting compensation from a supplier of shoddy goods or services without the expense of hiring a lawyer, the effective maximum is £750 - less than the cost of a plasma TV. That limit has been frozen for 19 years, whereas in England and Wales the small claims ceiling is £5000 and has been since 1999.
According to consumer organisation Which?, some despairing Scots who can do so, choose to pursue their cases in the English courts. Julia Clarke, public affairs officer for Which? in Scotland, has described the Executive's failure to act as a "charter for cowboys".
Personal injury claims are to be excluded from increases in the small claims threshold if and when the Executive does act. That much is clear.
Opponents of higher limits, however, which include trade unions, allege that more radical action would deny legal redress to thousands of Scots by taking them out of the legal aid net.
Others make dark allegations of protectionism, stressing that a rise would enable more people to go to court without having to pay a solicitor. Asked if the SNP will be increasing
the small claims limit and, if
so, to what level and when, MacAskill responded: "A root-and-branch reform is needed for a system unfit for 21st century society.
"The protection of those pursuing personal injury claims must be assured.
However, a faster and more streamlined system must be available for minor consumer and other small claims."
© All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without
permission is prohibited.
Posted by: Peter Cherbi, Edinburgh on 3:28am Mon 30 Apr 07
I am somewhat concerned over Kenny MacKaskill's attitude on this, and the policy of the SNP which seems to be to maintain the monopoly of lawyers & advocates in the area of legal services & representation.
This 'tesco law' goes much further back than Clementi - and we have Sections 25-29 of the Law Reform Misc Provisions Act 1990 which were to open up the legal services market - but which were never implemented due to intense lobbying from the legal profession - and resistance from at least one serving Lord Advocate, who in 1997 floated the idea of delay, and even repeal - which left lawyers & advocates retaining their monopoly over legal representation - and also - their power over saying who gets access to justice or the courts, and who does not.
Kenny MacKaskill seems also to have a problem with people who suffer injustice at the hands of his solicitor colleagues, as I see from his writings in the Law Society of Scotland journal : http://www.journalonline.co.uk/article/1001242.aspx
.. so I think a major adjustment of policy or thinking by the SNP is needed to include everyone in their policies for taking Scotland forward after Thursday .... not giving justice for some, and more injustice for others.
After all, its our Scotland - all of us, and we all deserve and have the right to justice, don't we ? .. we aren't going to go back to 'oh lets not do anything for those people because the legal profession don't want us to', are we now ?
On the matter of the small claims limit - please, it's been covered in the Herald before, and Messrs Digby Brown solicitors seemed to come out of that one as one of the major players in keeping the small claims limit down in Scotland - no doubt to retain business for the legal profession .. so, SNP .. put all this right, rather than continuing the problems left by Labour and their affiliates ...
I am somewhat concerned over Kenny MacKaskill's attitude on this, and the policy of the SNP which seems to be to maintain the monopoly of lawyers & advocates in the area of legal services & representation.
This 'tesco law' goes much further back than Clementi - and we have Sections 25-29 of the Law Reform Misc Provisions Act 1990 which were to open up the legal services market - but which were never implemented due to intense lobbying from the legal profession - and resistance from at least one serving Lord Advocate, who in 1997 floated the idea of delay, and even repeal - which left lawyers & advocates retaining their monopoly over legal representation - and also - their power over saying who gets access to justice or the courts, and who does not.
Kenny MacKaskill seems also to have a problem with people who suffer injustice at the hands of his solicitor colleagues, as I see from his writings in the Law Society of Scotland journal : http://www.journalonline.co.uk/article/1001242.aspx
.. so I think a major adjustment of policy or thinking by the SNP is needed to include everyone in their policies for taking Scotland forward after Thursday .... not giving justice for some, and more injustice for others.
After all, its our Scotland - all of us, and we all deserve and have the right to justice, don't we ? .. we aren't going to go back to 'oh lets not do anything for those people because the legal profession don't want us to', are we now ?
On the matter of the small claims limit - please, it's been covered in the Herald before, and Messrs Digby Brown solicitors seemed to come out of that one as one of the major players in keeping the small claims limit down in Scotland - no doubt to retain business for the legal profession .. so, SNP .. put all this right, rather than continuing the problems left by Labour and their affiliates ...
Posted by: LJPR LEGAL JUDICIAL POLITICAL REFORMERS, west coast on 8:41am Mon 30 Apr 07
We have said time and again the SNP are being run by lawyers for the interests ONLY of the Law Society of Scotland and TO the great disadvantage of ALL Scotlands citizens.The ratio of lawyer MSP's is as high IF NOT HIGHER in the SNP party as any other party.
Our group have been campaigning for many years to remove ALL lawyers from the Scottish Parliament.Those who make our laws cannot GAIN from enforcing them .
Their main concern when voting is to ensure the money train of legal aid continues to keep them in the lifestyle they THINK they deserve while our CIVIL legal system is an utter disgrace.
We have MANY victims of a system of law who have been bullied and abused for years by the mobsters controlling our courts only to finally lose everything including their homes STOLEN due to the criminal collusion of a legal mob who have ridden roughshod over ALL our rights for way to long.That we will continue to seek change over.
The SNP have been given an enormous amount of information over many years regarding the grand asset stripping in our courts and they have done virtually nothing as most of their LAWYER MSPs gain substantially from allowing this sinister system to continue unabated.
Scotland needs independence from a corrupt Westminster but not into another system of corruption as we have vast experience of the destruction of many Scots lives by the thieves due to the manipulation of Scottish law highjacked by mobsters.
WE DEMAND A FULL TRIAL BY JURY SYSTEM IN OUR CIVIL COURTS.THAT IS A RIGHT ENSHRINED IN OUR LAWS WHICH HAVE BEEN USURPED BY THOSE WHO ARE RUNNING THE COURTS TO THEIR OWN FINANCIAL ADVANTAGE AND TO THE GREAT DISADVANTAGE OF ALL ITS VICTIMS AND FUTURE VICTIMS UNLESS THEY CAN BE STOPPED.
LJPR LEGAL JUDICIAL POLITICAL REFORMERS
http://www.ljpr.cjb.net
We have said time and again the SNP are being run by lawyers for the interests ONLY of the Law Society of Scotland and TO the great disadvantage of ALL Scotlands citizens.The ratio of lawyer MSP's is as high IF NOT HIGHER in the SNP party as any other party.
Our group have been campaigning for many years to remove ALL lawyers from the Scottish Parliament.Those who make our laws cannot GAIN from enforcing them .
Their main concern when voting is to ensure the money train of legal aid continues to keep them in the lifestyle they THINK they deserve while our CIVIL legal system is an utter disgrace.
We have MANY victims of a system of law who have been bullied and abused for years by the mobsters controlling our courts only to finally lose everything including their homes STOLEN due to the criminal collusion of a legal mob who have ridden roughshod over ALL our rights for way to long.That we will continue to seek change over.
The SNP have been given an enormous amount of information over many years regarding the grand asset stripping in our courts and they have done virtually nothing as most of their LAWYER MSPs gain substantially from allowing this sinister system to continue unabated.
Scotland needs independence from a corrupt Westminster but not into another system of corruption as we have vast experience of the destruction of many Scots lives by the thieves due to the manipulation of Scottish law highjacked by mobsters.
WE DEMAND A FULL TRIAL BY JURY SYSTEM IN OUR CIVIL COURTS.THAT IS A RIGHT ENSHRINED IN OUR LAWS WHICH HAVE BEEN USURPED BY THOSE WHO ARE RUNNING THE COURTS TO THEIR OWN FINANCIAL ADVANTAGE AND TO THE GREAT DISADVANTAGE OF ALL ITS VICTIMS AND FUTURE VICTIMS UNLESS THEY CAN BE STOPPED.
LJPR LEGAL JUDICIAL POLITICAL REFORMERS
http://www.ljpr.cjb.net
Posted by: Big Wullie, Glasgow on 12:12pm Mon 30 Apr 07
Peter Cherbi is right, I think MacAskill will cover up for his Solicitor friends.
I wrote to him a while back claiming Malpractice and Misconduct within the ranks of SCCRC and his answer was he couldn't act as i was outwith his constituency (Which is Lothians) Next day he is in the paper shouting about incident in Barlinnie, (KKK).
Justice should be equally dispensed at all costs.
http://shirleymckie.myfastforum.org/sutra34.php#34
http://www.flickr.com/photos/big-wullie/
Peter Cherbi is right, I think MacAskill will cover up for his Solicitor friends.
I wrote to him a while back claiming Malpractice and Misconduct within the ranks of SCCRC and his answer was he couldn't act as i was outwith his constituency (Which is Lothians) Next day he is in the paper shouting about incident in Barlinnie, (KKK).
Justice should be equally dispensed at all costs.
http://shirleymckie.myfastforum.org/sutra34.php#34
http://www.flickr.com/photos/big-wullie/
Posted by: Big Wullie, Glasgow on 12:19pm Mon 30 Apr 07
Dear Mr Beck
I am sorry to read of the difficulties you have experienced. However, there is a
Parliament protocol that precludes members from acting on matters outwith their
constituency. I am unsure where you are either resident or detained as I cannot
act ouitwith the Lothian's.
I would add though that whilst I do think the SCCRC should act with greater
alacrity they have always been fair and impartial in my experience.
Can you advise re your location.
Kenny MacAskill
Proof that MacAskill wanted nothing to do with my complaints
Dear Mr Beck
I am sorry to read of the difficulties you have experienced. However, there is a
Parliament protocol that precludes members from acting on matters outwith their
constituency. I am unsure where you are either resident or detained as I cannot
act ouitwith the Lothian's.
I would add though that whilst I do think the SCCRC should act with greater
alacrity they have always been fair and impartial in my experience.
Can you advise re your location.
Kenny MacAskill
Proof that MacAskill wanted nothing to do with my complaints
Posted by: Big Wullie, Glasgow on 12:35pm Mon 30 Apr 07
Dear Mr Beck
It appears to me that you are resident in Glasgow and on that basis it should be
a Glasgow MSP. The fact that the incident and police are located in Lothian is
secondary. The constituent is you and that is what matters.
In any event there are practical and other difficulties . I am not able to
simply ask the First Minister anything as there is limited opportunity for such
questions the same will apply to a Glasgow MSP I should add though.
However, it does seem to me that you do require to consult someone in either the
constituency you reside in or the Glasgow region.
Kenny MacAskill
Peter Cherbi is right about MacAskill not wanting to know about Justice
Dear Mr Beck
It appears to me that you are resident in Glasgow and on that basis it should be
a Glasgow MSP. The fact that the incident and police are located in Lothian is
secondary. The constituent is you and that is what matters.
In any event there are practical and other difficulties . I am not able to
simply ask the First Minister anything as there is limited opportunity for such
questions the same will apply to a Glasgow MSP I should add though.
However, it does seem to me that you do require to consult someone in either the
constituency you reside in or the Glasgow region.
Kenny MacAskill
Peter Cherbi is right about MacAskill not wanting to know about Justice
Posted by: Big Wullie, Glasgow on 1:03pm Mon 30 Apr 07
Peter Cherbi
Do you think people should be allowed to Appeal more than once in criminal cases.
For example there may be a material Law Change since the last Appeal like Anderson V HMA was not available in 1982 but is now.
Another example is when Leave to Appeal is rejected, should people then be allowed to lodge other arguable grounds which have not been tested in court.
According to Tom Higgins you only have one chance and even if this does not pass Leave you have no chance to ever Appeal again.
Unfortunately Mr. Beck if you are not successful at the first attempt when appealing you are not permitted to return to the Appeal Court. I appreciate that you were simply asking for leave to appeal but it should be borne in mind that you did lodge grounds of appeal that were subsequently rejected.
It would not make sense to allow someone to simply continue appeal;ing to the Court everytime his / her appeal was refused.
If you believe that you have grounds of appeal that you wish tested in the Court of Appeal then I suggest that you contact the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission who, if they believe a Miscarriage of Justice has taken place, can refer a case back to the Appeal Court. Beyond that I have nothing further to add.
Regards
Tom Higgins
Appeals Manager
Peter Cherbi
Do you think people should be allowed to Appeal more than once in criminal cases.
For example there may be a material Law Change since the last Appeal like Anderson V HMA was not available in 1982 but is now.
Another example is when Leave to Appeal is rejected, should people then be allowed to lodge other arguable grounds which have not been tested in court.
According to Tom Higgins you only have one chance and even if this does not pass Leave you have no chance to ever Appeal again.
Unfortunately Mr. Beck if you are not successful at the first attempt when appealing you are not permitted to return to the Appeal Court. I appreciate that you were simply asking for leave to appeal but it should be borne in mind that you did lodge grounds of appeal that were subsequently rejected.
It would not make sense to allow someone to simply continue appeal;ing to the Court everytime his / her appeal was refused.
If you believe that you have grounds of appeal that you wish tested in the Court of Appeal then I suggest that you contact the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission who, if they believe a Miscarriage of Justice has taken place, can refer a case back to the Appeal Court. Beyond that I have nothing further to add.
Regards
Tom Higgins
Appeals Manager
Posted by: ChrisCook, Linlithgow on 1:15pm Mon 30 Apr 07
You're only going to get Tesco Law if you use a Tesco legal form ie the Joint Stock Limited Liability Company.
Well, one of the unknown achievements of our Westminster masters is that they accidentally made the Limited Company obsolete six years ago when - in order to insulate accountants and lawyers from the consequences of their own negligence - they were blackmailed (by the previous "purchase" of Jersey LLP statute) into legislating the UK Limited Liability Partnership.
Any firm of lawyers, whether advocates or solicitors, and whatever legal form they use, may simply raise whatever Capital they need by becoming a Member - alongside Investors - of a "Capital Parnership" LLP.
Investors simply receive a proportional "Equity Share" of the lawyer's GROSS revenues - if there are any of course.
It's not Tesco Equity - and it's not Debt either - but a simple new financial hybrid.
Just don't expect to hear about it from anyone paid by the hour, rather than the outcome, though.
You're only going to get Tesco Law if you use a Tesco legal form ie the Joint Stock Limited Liability Company.
Well, one of the unknown achievements of our Westminster masters is that they accidentally made the Limited Company obsolete six years ago when - in order to insulate accountants and lawyers from the consequences of their own negligence - they were blackmailed (by the previous "purchase" of Jersey LLP statute) into legislating the UK Limited Liability Partnership.
Any firm of lawyers, whether advocates or solicitors, and whatever legal form they use, may simply raise whatever Capital they need by becoming a Member - alongside Investors - of a "Capital Parnership" LLP.
Investors simply receive a proportional "Equity Share" of the lawyer's GROSS revenues - if there are any of course.
It's not Tesco Equity - and it's not Debt either - but a simple new financial hybrid.
Just don't expect to hear about it from anyone paid by the hour, rather than the outcome, though.
Posted by: Peter Cherbi, Edinburgh on 3:45pm Mon 30 Apr 07
#Big Wullie
While the rules are fairly strict on msps only being able to help their own constituents, if Kenny MacAskill becomes Justice Minister, he wouldn't be able to claim that he can't help someone or look at their case - so after this Thursday, try again !
The problems with Appeals, lie with lawyers - as all things do with regards to legal services.
If they get it wrong, then your only chance is blown, and arguing that with the SCCRC will be almost impossible, as you will face the wrath of the legal profession covering up for their mistake .. a case of no friends at all .. so there has to be ad adjustment in those rules and some kind of oversight to see the appeals are properly put to the SCCRC.
I really have doubts about Kenny MacAskill after reading this article today. He doesn't come across as believable at all in his response over implementation of the LPLA reforms, and with his apalling attitude over those who have suffered injustice, particularly at the hands of his colleagues in the legal profession, I wonder if those reforms to the legal profession, which many have fought for, including myself since 1994, may be in jeapoardy.
I think we need some reassurance from the SNP on that one, otherwise I can see the creep of political meddling from the legal profession reaching in to make a few deals to delay or kill off the LPLA reforms, much like the tories and then Labour did with Sections 25-29 and some other parts of the Law Reform (Misc Provisions) Act 1990 .. as well as a few other laws on the books which would bake life a bit easier for the public when dealing with crooked professionals & wayward, dictatorial self regulatory bodies out to protect their own at any cost.
It's time to end injustice in Scotland surely ? and if the SNP get in, there will be no excuse for allowing all these fiddles and slip outs from the law just to protect friends & colleagues from complaints or investigations .. so let's get the job done properly Mr MacAskill .. no half measures please.
#Big Wullie
While the rules are fairly strict on msps only being able to help their own constituents, if Kenny MacAskill becomes Justice Minister, he wouldn't be able to claim that he can't help someone or look at their case - so after this Thursday, try again !
The problems with Appeals, lie with lawyers - as all things do with regards to legal services.
If they get it wrong, then your only chance is blown, and arguing that with the SCCRC will be almost impossible, as you will face the wrath of the legal profession covering up for their mistake .. a case of no friends at all .. so there has to be ad adjustment in those rules and some kind of oversight to see the appeals are properly put to the SCCRC.
I really have doubts about Kenny MacAskill after reading this article today. He doesn't come across as believable at all in his response over implementation of the LPLA reforms, and with his apalling attitude over those who have suffered injustice, particularly at the hands of his colleagues in the legal profession, I wonder if those reforms to the legal profession, which many have fought for, including myself since 1994, may be in jeapoardy.
I think we need some reassurance from the SNP on that one, otherwise I can see the creep of political meddling from the legal profession reaching in to make a few deals to delay or kill off the LPLA reforms, much like the tories and then Labour did with Sections 25-29 and some other parts of the Law Reform (Misc Provisions) Act 1990 .. as well as a few other laws on the books which would bake life a bit easier for the public when dealing with crooked professionals & wayward, dictatorial self regulatory bodies out to protect their own at any cost.
It's time to end injustice in Scotland surely ? and if the SNP get in, there will be no excuse for allowing all these fiddles and slip outs from the law just to protect friends & colleagues from complaints or investigations .. so let's get the job done properly Mr MacAskill .. no half measures please.
Posted by: Euan, Qatar on 4:49pm Mon 30 Apr 07
It's sure going to be difficult to have an independent appeals system for chasing incompetent or negligent lawyers. Like the press complaints system both have been set up to defend the lawyers or the press against attack by the great unwashed hoi polloi. We can expect the press to support the lawyers on this one.
Euan
It's sure going to be difficult to have an independent appeals system for chasing incompetent or negligent lawyers. Like the press complaints system both have been set up to defend the lawyers or the press against attack by the great unwashed hoi polloi. We can expect the press to support the lawyers on this one.
Euan
Posted by: John, Glasgow on 6:54pm Mon 30 Apr 07
It seems that most of the above posters live for a monday and the law and accountancy pages. Its time you all realised that the vast majority of lawyers are not corrupt or negligent.
It seems that most of the above posters live for a monday and the law and accountancy pages. Its time you all realised that the vast majority of lawyers are not corrupt or negligent.
Posted by: Big Wullie, Glasgow on 12:41am Tue 1 May 07
#John, Glasgow.
I have not once said anything other than what i can prove.
Mr Keegan Solicitor told lies to SCCRC when they asked him if he was given the crown precognitions in my case, (Both his statements are available on my flickr site which i will link)
Mr Keegan said they would not have been available to him then when i proved to Law Society that Mr Keegan did not interview 16 of 19 of my defence witnesses Mr Keegan changed his statement and has now said the Author of his statement (SCCRC) is mistaken.
Mr Keegan would have had to extract the statements from Crown as he never bothered to interview my witnesses.
This i put to SCCRC claiming defective representation Anderson V HMA SCCRC would not even ask Keegan why he never interviewed so many of my defence witnesses, Where is their Independence and Impartialness they profess and their robust Investigations.
SCCRC do not look Independently at cases at-all they look at cases to see how to UPHOLD the convictions, They work for Justice department.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/big-wullie/424574582/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WhJUjhequ4
#John, Glasgow.
I have not once said anything other than what i can prove.
Mr Keegan Solicitor told lies to SCCRC when they asked him if he was given the crown precognitions in my case, (Both his statements are available on my flickr site which i will link)
Mr Keegan said they would not have been available to him then when i proved to Law Society that Mr Keegan did not interview 16 of 19 of my defence witnesses Mr Keegan changed his statement and has now said the Author of his statement (SCCRC) is mistaken.
Mr Keegan would have had to extract the statements from Crown as he never bothered to interview my witnesses.
This i put to SCCRC claiming defective representation Anderson V HMA SCCRC would not even ask Keegan why he never interviewed so many of my defence witnesses, Where is their Independence and Impartialness they profess and their robust Investigations.
SCCRC do not look Independently at cases at-all they look at cases to see how to UPHOLD the convictions, They work for Justice department.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/big-wullie/424574582/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WhJUjhequ4
Posted by: Big Wullie, Glasgow on 1:00am Tue 1 May 07
#John, Glasgow
I am in no way suggesting that all Lawyers are corrupt or negligent.
I am however suggesting that SCCRC are Corrupt, they refused to interview my witnesses saying their evidence was hearsay and as such i would not be allowed to rely on it at any subsequent appeal or trial, Bull ****. Hearsay evidence is admissible but my witnesses speaking of seeing and hearing something is not hearsay evidence.
SCCRC have said they will only refer cases under current Law yet they refused to apply this to the conduct at my ID Parade even though they have agreed that it was not of an acceptable standard for today. See flickr site.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/big-wullie/424549189/
http://www.sccrc.org.uk/legislation/sccrc-current-law.htm
#John, Glasgow
I am in no way suggesting that all Lawyers are corrupt or negligent.
I am however suggesting that SCCRC are Corrupt, they refused to interview my witnesses saying their evidence was hearsay and as such i would not be allowed to rely on it at any subsequent appeal or trial, Bull ****. Hearsay evidence is admissible but my witnesses speaking of seeing and hearing something is not hearsay evidence.
SCCRC have said they will only refer cases under current Law yet they refused to apply this to the conduct at my ID Parade even though they have agreed that it was not of an acceptable standard for today. See flickr site.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/big-wullie/424549189/
http://www.sccrc.org.uk/legislation/sccrc-current-law.htm
Posted by: Peter Cherbi, Edinburgh on 1:58am Tue 1 May 07
#John gets it wrong again unfortunately.
No one is saying all lawyers are corrupt or negligent - in fact I certainly know one, a very hard working, family man, who does his best for those he defends - although he too suffers from professional bullying to leave clients in the lurch without legal representation, just because the bosses of the Law Society declare someone should not be allowed to go to court & prove a negligence case.
The problem is, the rest of the legal profession are covering up for the crooked - partly because if they don't, their annual subscriptions to their Professional Indemnity Insurance will rise through the roof, partly, because it's bad for their image, which is at rock bottom anyway.
Oh yes .. I have heard the old chestnut a few times ... 'We, the legal profession rout the crooked and keep up standards' .. but that just isn't so. No one outside the legal profession believes it, and there isn't one lawyer it seems who is brave enough or honest enough to use their full real name online in challenging arguements to their professional doctrine that 'all is well with the legal profession'.
I remmeber very well, an interview I once did on BBC, with the President of the Law Society of Scotland and one media darling lawyer pitted against me. All they could do was attack, attack, attack .. couldn't answer the arguements of injtsice, details of wrongdoing, negligence, etc ..and so fierce was their rage, they lapsed into an 'lawyer v client' attitude which jammed the switchboards of BBC radio that morning. It's the same on the forums of newspapers, all lawyers can do is attack, or ridicule, or try and rubbish the online debate over how honest or not (usually not) the legal profession really is.
Never mind my own problems for a minute, but I was glad it showed to those listeners the extent of the rage felt by the legal profession against those who go against it or question it's self given right to play god with people's rights, money, livelihoods and lives.
There are many people up and down Scotland who have suffered at the hands of their lawyers - the Law Society got over 4000 complaints alone in the last year against its members - and it's been running at 5000 complaints a year since about 2000. There are only 10,000 or less lawyers in Scotland, so do the maths on that one ... it seems there's a lot of disattisfaction with the legal fraternity .. and those who are brave enough to stand up and make a complaint on what can amount to very serious frauds, embezzlements, and negligence of all kind, deserve a lot more than they are getting just now at the hands of the Law Society.
#John gets it wrong again unfortunately.
No one is saying all lawyers are corrupt or negligent - in fact I certainly know one, a very hard working, family man, who does his best for those he defends - although he too suffers from professional bullying to leave clients in the lurch without legal representation, just because the bosses of the Law Society declare someone should not be allowed to go to court & prove a negligence case.
The problem is, the rest of the legal profession are covering up for the crooked - partly because if they don't, their annual subscriptions to their Professional Indemnity Insurance will rise through the roof, partly, because it's bad for their image, which is at rock bottom anyway.
Oh yes .. I have heard the old chestnut a few times ... 'We, the legal profession rout the crooked and keep up standards' .. but that just isn't so. No one outside the legal profession believes it, and there isn't one lawyer it seems who is brave enough or honest enough to use their full real name online in challenging arguements to their professional doctrine that 'all is well with the legal profession'.
I remmeber very well, an interview I once did on BBC, with the President of the Law Society of Scotland and one media darling lawyer pitted against me. All they could do was attack, attack, attack .. couldn't answer the arguements of injtsice, details of wrongdoing, negligence, etc ..and so fierce was their rage, they lapsed into an 'lawyer v client' attitude which jammed the switchboards of BBC radio that morning. It's the same on the forums of newspapers, all lawyers can do is attack, or ridicule, or try and rubbish the online debate over how honest or not (usually not) the legal profession really is.
Never mind my own problems for a minute, but I was glad it showed to those listeners the extent of the rage felt by the legal profession against those who go against it or question it's self given right to play god with people's rights, money, livelihoods and lives.
There are many people up and down Scotland who have suffered at the hands of their lawyers - the Law Society got over 4000 complaints alone in the last year against its members - and it's been running at 5000 complaints a year since about 2000. There are only 10,000 or less lawyers in Scotland, so do the maths on that one ... it seems there's a lot of disattisfaction with the legal fraternity .. and those who are brave enough to stand up and make a complaint on what can amount to very serious frauds, embezzlements, and negligence of all kind, deserve a lot more than they are getting just now at the hands of the Law Society.
Posted by: Big Wullie, Glasgow on 2:44am Tue 1 May 07
Peter Cherbi
I know what it is like to have the wrath of the legal profession against me as i have been fighting with SCCRC Justice minister and MSPs for the last 6 years now trying to just have an Appeal to which i am entitled.
They all seem to think that i have had an Appeal in 1982 which was merely rejected at Leave and did not progress by this.
This can explain why High Court cannot produce any Opinion from my Appeal in 1982.
No Opinion No Appeal.
I have been informed from National Archives that all Appeals are Kept even Abandoned ones, So where is the opinion from mine if i have had one
Peter Cherbi
I know what it is like to have the wrath of the legal profession against me as i have been fighting with SCCRC Justice minister and MSPs for the last 6 years now trying to just have an Appeal to which i am entitled.
They all seem to think that i have had an Appeal in 1982 which was merely rejected at Leave and did not progress by this.
This can explain why High Court cannot produce any Opinion from my Appeal in 1982.
No Opinion No Appeal.
I have been informed from National Archives that all Appeals are Kept even Abandoned ones, So where is the opinion from mine if i have had one
Business
INDEX
Comment | Read Comments (14)
