In his rant (Letters, August 17), Graham Bryson does perhaps get to the root of what is wrong with the legal system in Scotland: rather than simply seeing themselves as practitioners in the law of Scotland, some Scots lawyers seem to think they own it.
On what other basis could he, or they, fail to see the difference between solicitors' standards being "rigorously applied and monitored by a powerful external government agency", or self-regulation by the Law Society of Scotland, which exists to "represent the interests of solicitors"?
Furthermore, members of the public can generally only employ advocates through solicitors. I note Mr Bryson avoids referring to the word "monopoly".
Bryan H Stuart, Pitmachie, Insch, Aberdeenshire.
Graham Bryson's letter (August 17) is a breathtaking example of the power of delusional thinking. His contention that the Law Society "is rigorous in its inspection and regulation of solicitors", impliedly for the benefit of the laity, is risible.
The Law Society, like the Faculty of Advocates, was created exclusively to protect lawyers from the consequences of their frequently appalling conduct. An alarming number of Scotland's lawyers are astute purveyors of operatic numptitude, balletic incompetence, neo-classical ineptitude and postmodern cupidity. Many of them also possess an almost bestial appetite for bloated pomposity.
Surprisingly, many recipients of that kind of genius are far from grateful and consequently waste their time complaining to the Law Society or the Faculty of Advocates. Very quickly they learn that unless their legal "advisers" engaged in conduct just short of first degree murder, they will almost certainly be exonerated - such is the quality of the bias that inheres in the minds of the rigorous regulators. Hence the urgent need for a completely independent regulatory system, untainted by the influence of lawyers. Mr Bryson depicts the Scottish legal system as "a signficant bulwark against oppression of the individual". What led him to that conclusion? The Lockerbie trial?
Thomas Crooks, 81 Dundas St, Edinburgh.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article