Proper Justice
Neil Mackenzie's operatic song
of praise for how the Faculty of Advocates facilitates the training
of advocates in Scotland is reflective of the periodic propaganda
produced by the Faculty of Advocates and the Law Society of Scotland
to persuade a sceptical laity that only the selfless input of lawyers
can produce effective access to justice (Scotsman, 11 March).
Mr Mackenzie proudly informs us that "there has always been
a training culture at the Faculty as it seeks to uphold values of:
a commitment to excellence; a commitment to the noblest ideals of
professional conduct; and, above all, a commitment to justice for
all in our society".
Surprisingly, he failed to mention the fact that more than a few
pompous advocates regularly subvert those lofty commitments by peddling
absurd advice and untenable opinions - thereby ruining, at great
expense, their clients' cases.
Consequently, many clients remain convinced that effective access
to justice would be greatly enhanced if solicitors, advocates and
QCs were removed from the process. In response to the rapid
development of artificial intelligence, many experts have speculated
that lawyers could soon be replaced by ultra-efficient machines.
If true, access to real justice in Scotland, uncontaminated by the
input of lawyers, would become a real, and welcome, possibility.
Thomas Crooks
Dundas Street
Edinburgh
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The Herald, Wednesday, 27 November 2013
In the context of the Lockerbie
trial, a Maltese newspaper has published extracts of police documents
that said Mr Gauci had “a clear desire to gain financial benefit”
from his evidence.
Documents released since the trial have repeatedly suggested the
Gaucis expressed an interest in being paid for their testimony under
the Reward for Justice programme controlled by the Department of
Justice in the US.
A senior investigator in the inquiry has conceded that the brothers
would have known about possible payments, but that nothing was offered
before the trial and it had “never been discussed with them
at any time prior to the trial – so it’s absolutely
above board. There is no suggestion that there was anything underhand.
It was all above board.”
After the trial, the senior investigator wrote to the US Department
of Justice to recommend the pair receive a reward because he said
the Gaucis fitted the criteria.
Last month the Crown Office stated: “No witness was offered
any inducement by the Crown or the Scottish police before and during
the trial and there is no evidence that any other law enforcement
agency offered such an inducement.”
Arguably, no direct “inducement” was required.
The Gaucis would have known they “fitted the criteria”
for the reward. They had, before the trial, in the context
of the justice programme, imbued their “evidence” with
a monetary value.
The entire proceedings were scented with the aroma of reward –
and it is arguable that the aroma scented the quality of the evidence
provided by the brothers. Any jurisdiction with a reputation
for the pursuit of justice would be concerned with the implications
of such an aroma.
In this jurisdiction, the integrity of the proceedings reign supreme
– irrespective of the objective material that points to the
possibility of a colossal miscarriage of justice.
Thomas Crooks
Dundas Street
Edinburgh
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The Scotsman, Thursday 28 November 2013
Without wishing to detract from
the merits of the fine contributions of Iain McKie and Thomas Crooks
(Letters, 27 November) regarding the Lockerbie witness reward monies,
I was convinced that the trial was a farce long before the reward
information was made public.
My disgust at the trial proceedings came when the United Nations
appointed observer, Professor Hans Köechler published his first
report in 2003 and criticised the interference in the presentation
of evidence to the court by representatives of foreign governments.
Reporting on the appeal, Prof Köechler was similarly critical,
to which the Crown Office responded by stating that it is a matter
for the court itself to regulate who should be present. Explaining
that the High Court of Justiciary has, “for long accepted
that it is a matter for the Lord Advocate and Crown Counsel whom
they choose to have in court in their support”.
Of course, the Crown Office can do as they like, but they should
not be surprised if by having anonymous United States officials
supervising in the dock of a Scottish court they have abandoned
any hope of appearing impartial in a political sense.
That was how Prof Köechler saw it and we shouldn't be surprised
if the world (excluding the US) views the Lockerbie trial and appeal
verdicts as the work of Uncle Sam via a puppet state.
Tom Minogue
Victoria Terrace
Dunfermline,
Fife
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The Herald, 12 May 2012
YOUR revelations regarding the failure of the Crown Office to provide the defence with the material pertaining to the Heathrow break-in just hours before the Lockerbie bombing seriously undermines the integrity of the prosecution's case and, therefore, the integrity of the Scottish legal system.
The Crown Office dismissed the pre-trial significance of the break-in thus: "Even if this evidence had been heard by the trial court, it would not have reached a different verdict." This appears to derive from the wisdom of a Crown Office spokesman who said: "The Appeal Court was satisfied that, having heard direct evidence about the break-in at Heathrow, the verdict of the trial court was not a miscarriage of justice."
Arguably, that conclusion was influenced by the same kind of insular and complacent mindset that persuaded the Crown Office to withhold the Heathrow information from the defence.
The legal establishment in Scotland does not always react with optimum objectivity when confronted with challenges to its authority. When the Supreme Court overturned the unanimous decision of the High Court of Justiciary to dismiss Peter Cadder's appeal against his conviction (the appeal derived from human rights law regarding access to legal representation subsequent to arrest) the reaction of the legal establishment in Scotland was almost hysterical.
An informed bystander might be concerned that the Heathrow break-in should have been the subject of more robust and objective appraisal during Megrahi's first appeal.
Thomas Crooks,
81 Dundas Street,
Edinburgh.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The Herald, May 2004
The Herald should be
commended for its front page lead (18 May), “Complaints against
lawyers soar”, which denoted public dissatisfaction with the
industry’s representative body, “The Law Society of
Scotland”.
The Legal Services Ombudsman’s call for a full-scale investigation
into the Law Society for failing to follow up scores of complaints
is also welcome, even though it is just a small step in the right
direction.
The campaign group “Scotland Against Crooked Lawyers
(SACL)" has for years consistently disclosed that
“According to the Law Society’s own guidance manual
for lawyers, Better Client Care & Business Management,
only 4 per cent of unhappy customers make their concerns known”.
There were 2,036 complaints in 2003, which the Law Society “decided”
should be dealt with through conciliation or investigation, so how
many complaints were discarded and not investigated?
All the figures should be registered and made available to the public.
Furthermore, if the total number of complaints lodged - which is
probably at least double 2,036 - represents only 4 per cent of aggrieved
clients, it is a monumental indictment on lawyers and the Law Society.
This Herald article provoked opinionated responses in your
Letters pages from some legal reactionaries, although, as reported
in The Herald the day after the article was published,
the leader of the Scottish National Party John Swinney, on behalf
of the SNP, called for decisive government action to reform the
way in which complaints against solicitors are handled.
Alan Davies, convener of the client care committee of the Law Society,
claims (Letters, 20 May) that the Society introduced many changes
over the years to improve the way it handles complaints. If
its present state is an improvement, it only illustrates how woeful
it was previously.
Mr Davies also refers to the Justice 1 Committee’s inquiry
into self-regulation of the legal profession, but without elaboration.
He did not mention that the Committee was inundated with members
of the legal profession. LINK
It was SACL who initiated the development of the inquiry, but the
remit was greatly reduced to exclude the Faculty of Advocates and
the judiciary from investigation and to evidently vindicate the
Law Society’s exclusive right to preside over clients’
complaints.
What was supposed to be a “public” inquiry allowed extensive
documents from the legal fraternity – even those excluded
from the remit – to be submitted, while much of the submissions
from the public were tampered with and totally disregarded.
This is borne out by the files on the parliamentary website.
Members of the legal profession were also permitted to make lengthy
oral submissions while members of the public were not.
Only a fresh and unpretentious inquiry will fully satisfy the legal
consumer, with no sections of the legal profession excluded from
the Committee’s remit.
William Burns
Shore Road
South Queensferry
Scotland Against Crooked Lawyers (SACL)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The letter by Duncan L Murray,
President of the Law Society of Scotland (31 May) is extremely misleading.
Although, as he says, the LSoS was established by an Act of Parliament
to promote the interests of the Scottish solicitors' profession
and the public in relation to the profession, the Scottish legal
consumer is only too well aware that it is impossible for the LSoS
to serve two masters.
And since the LSoS is responsible for licensing solicitors to give
audience in court and for playing the role of a union for solicitors,
collecting what might well be defined as union dues from them on
an annual basis, complainants know beyond any shadow of a doubt
where the LSoS’s priorities lie.
Why should we expect it to be otherwise! It is the Act of Parliament
that ought to be rescinded and new legislation enacted to provide
the public with a complaints body that has no input whatsoever from
the legal profession.
It is not difficult for a layperson to look at the evidence, put
it into context, and make a reasoned, judicious assessment with
complete impartiality and with no vested interest in either party.
By his own admission, Mr Murray says the society's client relations
office received 2,959 items of complaint, albeit a small number
of them were misplaced as they related to other members of the legal
profession who are not currently in the society’s “union”,
for example judges and advocates.
However at page 6.1 of the society’s own guidance manual to
all lawyers and law firms, “Better Client Care & Practice
Management”, it concedes that only 4 per cent of unhappy customers
make their concerns known. If 2,959 represents only 4 per
cent, they might well have received complaints in the region of
700,000.
According to the LSoS’s latest Annual Report, there are 9,120
members holding practising certificates, so the number of potential
complaints could average out at around 77 for every solicitor in
Scotland. That is a worrying statistic for the legal consumer.
Another exceedingly misleading statement by Mr Murray is that “the
LSoS has been supported in its work by the conclusions and recommendations
of the Scottish Parliament's Justice 1 Committee, as well as by
the Scottish Parliament, which passed the Council of the Law Society
(Scotland) Act, 2003, with cross-party support.”
Mr Murray must know that this inquiry was a complete farce.
Even though “Scotland Against Crooked Lawyers (SACL)”,
the campaign group that initiated this inquiry into self-regulation
of the legal profession, and that persistently urged the Scottish
Parliament to replace the lawyer presence in the Justice 1 Committee,
their numbers were actually increased, ensuring that the evidence
from the opponents of self-regulation was fragmentary in a totally
one-sided, prejudiced “show hearing“ designed to retain
the status quo. LINK
SACL has recently submitted another petition, calling on the Parliament
to disband the justice 1 Committee and re-visit the original inquiry
with its original remit and with a lawyerless tribunal. LINK
SACL will continue to shatter the myth that the Law Society
takes complaints of the legal consumer seriously. And why
should they? Does the fox put the interests of the chicken
before its cubs!
William Burns
Shore Road
South Queensferry
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The Scotsman, June 2004
Waste of time voting
For the first time in almost 3½ decades,
I did not vote in an election. This was after a letter from
the Scottish Executive on polling day convinced me it was a complete
waste of time.
In a letter to the Minister for Justice, Cathy Jamieson of 8 May
2004, I made enquiries about an independent complaints body, or
Working Group, that was being set up to handle grievances against
solicitors. I stressed that I believed it would be just
another toothless tiger if members from the campaign group, Scotland
Against Crooked Lawyers, were not invited to provide some
real hands-on expertise and sincerity.
In an acknowledgement, she advised me that my letter had been
passed to her “officials” for a response. This
prompted me to query who in fact were these officials to whom
she was delegating her responsibilities. On Thursday, 10
June, I was informed by letter from an employee with the Scottish
Executive that, basically, the old-guard reactionaries who have
done nothing on the score of modernising and improving the complaints
procedures over many years would suffice for handling grievances
against solicitors in the new set-up.
More significantly, I was “assured” by this civil
servant, that they make these decisions with complete impartiality.
Besides the many civil servants employed by the Scottish Executive,
it was reported recently that there are 100 lawyers also employed
full-time. My immediate and sustained thoughts were, “If
I was living in a dictatorship, I would at least know who was
making the all-important decisions that affect all our lives,
but in our would-be democracy, we may well know who we are voting
for, but we have no idea who the faceless people are who make
all the crucial decisions that affect all our lives.
After some poignant reappraisal, I decided I had no other choice
but to tear up my official poll card.
William Burns
Shore Road
South Queensferry
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The Scotsman, Friday 26 September 2003
With regard to the recent speech by Jack McConnell, the First Minister, on reforming the legal system, he has failed to address civil law, where, due to collusion between the Law Society of Scotland’s members, many litigants cannot get legal representation and face losing their life’s work. At least in criminal law the state is forced to provide legal representation
Duncan Shields
Ashton Terrace
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Self-regulation by lawyers is a farce
Douglas Mill of the Law Society
of Scotland (June 21), in response to the legal services ombudsman's
lame criticism of self-regulation, almost deified his organisation
by carefully missing the point: self-regulation is a farce, a comedy
of manners calculated to create the illusion of objectivity.
He tried to defend a system of regulation that intrinsically favours
solicitors by revealing that the law society has "introduced
a new system of regulation which aims to speed up the complaints
process". That is a fallacy: there is nothing "new"
about the "system" because it is still run by lawyers
for the benefit of lawyers.
Even if the "speed of the complaints system" exceeded
the speed of light squared, the result would always be the same:
the total exoneration of almost every solicitor whose conduct merited
a complaint to the law society.
Only total abolition of self-regulation and the creation of a totally
independent system of regulation will suffice, and only the Scottish
Parliament can deliver that.
It will be a long wait.
Thomas Crooks
81 Dundas Street
Edinburgh
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The Herald, Thursday, 5 January 2017
I cannot agree with Christopher Frew, who
is opposed to the holding of a public inquiry into the Lockerbie
case because it would upset US public opinion (Letters, January
4). Far too many questions hang over the conviction of the late
Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi for the horrific bombing of PanAm
Flight 103 over Lockerbie, and these questions will not go away.
If Megrahi was innocent, justice demands that his name must be
cleared for the sake of his family, for all the bereaved families,
and for the reputation of the Scottish justice system.
Anything less than the truth should be unacceptable to the public
on both sides of the Atlantic. Let a full public inquiry be held
and the true facts be known.
Ruth Marr
Stirling
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The Scotsman, Wednesday 27 November 2013
Lockerbie logic
The effects of the explosion of Pan Am flight
103 over Lockerbie in 1988 reverberated across Scotland and the
world and many hoped that when Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi
was found guilty of the atrocity in 2001 that healing could start,
comforted by the fact that Scotland’s justice system had
served the 270 victims and their families well.
Unfortunately, as the 25th anniversary of the tragedy approaches,
your latest revelations (15 November) only serve to highlight
just what a miscarriage of injustice this was.
I follow the logic that “the explanation requiring the fewest
assumptions is most likely to be correct”. It is not the
complex legal, political and forensic “facts” about
the case that convince but the “simple” ones.
At the Camp Zeist trial the “star” prosecution witness,
Tony Gauci, identified Megrahi as the person who had purchased
clothes in his shop in Malta which were identified as having been
packed in the suitcase containing the bomb which destroyed the
aircraft.
To this end over many years Mr Gauci was interviewed more than
50 times and produced over 20 different statements before he arrived
at his eventual “identification” for the court.
Conclusive documentary and witness evidence now proves that since
1989 Mr Gauci had regularly expressed an interest in monetary
reward for giving evidence at the trial and that eventually he
was paid $2 million with the full knowledge of the UK and Scottish
authorities.
Forget the complexities. I would be interested in hearing from
anyone who can, from these simple facts, come to any conclusion
other than Mr Gauci’s evidence is so seriously compromised
as to be worthless and that, as a result, a critical plank of
the prosecution case is left without a shred of credibility.
Logic would also appear to dictate that our Scottish Government
seeks an immediate inquiry into why prevarication and procrastination
have become the default position of the authorities for nearly
25 years.
Iain A J McKie
South Beach Road
Ayr
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The Herald, 12 May 2012
Jim Swire, father of Lockerbie victim,
on the murderers: 'They have been framed'
Related article: Secret report:
Megrahi is not the Lockerbie bomber
I WENT into the Zeist trial court convinced that I would see
two of the murderers of my daughter convicted.
I was but a layman. Having heard the evidence, I emerged believing
they had been framed.
It seemed obvious that the prosecution's story of a man (Abdelbaset
Ali Mohmed al Megrahi) using a fully adjustable and long-running
digital timer and setting it so that, after two changes of aircraft,
it still only cleared Heathrow by 38 minutes, was a little unlikely.
During the trial it seemed more likely to me that an air-pressure-sensitive
improvised explosive device (IED) perfected by the PFLP-GC terrorist
group centred in Damascus and allied to Iran, might have brought
the plane down.
We heard the details of these devices in the Zeist courtroom
from Crown witness Herr Gobel, a West German forensics expert,
how these IEDs were available in the terrorist world in December
1988, and that they had a non-adjustable interval of 35-45 minutes
from take-off to explosion if put on an airplane.
The Lockerbie aircraft managed just 38 minutes before the explosion.
Herr Gobel's evidence made it plain that such a device could
not have been flown from Frankfurt to Heathrow let alone from
Malta, unless it was armed at Heathrow airport. Otherwise, it
would have had to be introduced at Heathrow to avoid explosion
en route. Yet there was no known evidence to support introduction
or arming of such a device at Heathrow. We now know that there
was precisely this evidence available but that the police/Crown
Office had failed to pass it to the defence team or the court
("Vital evidence on Lockerbie was withheld", The
Herald, May 3).
The point at issue is simple: why was this evidence not available
to the trial court? The UN's special observer to the trial,
Professor Hans Koechler, described the trial as not representing
justice because of failures of the prosecution to share information
with the defence.
Sooner or later the truth will out, but I fear that the longer
it takes, the greater will be the damage to our legal system's
reputation. The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission was
correct in eventually deciding that "there may have been
a miscarriage of justice". The appeal which followed, held
in the knowledge of the plaintiff's progressive illness, seemed
to some also to be subject to unwarranted delaying tactics by
the Crown Office, though combined with the illness of a judge.
The Scottish Government does have the powers to order an inquiry.
The relatives and the people of Scotland have a right to know
the truth.
Dr Jim
Swire,
Rowans Corner,
Calf Lane,Chipping Campden,
Gloucestershire.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The Scotsman, Monday, 31 December 2007
Alternative take
IAIN MCKIE, father of former detective Shirley
McKie, from Ayr, warns the forensic foundation of our entire legal
system is under threat.
FOR well over a century police, lawyers, judges and juries have
accepted forensic evidence without question. But now as
"light is being let in on the magic", fingerprinting,
DNA, footwear, firearm and the other such evidence is being challenged
and found wanting.
The Omagh bombing, the World's End Murders, the Templeton Woods
murder and the SCRO fingerprint case have all shown that previously
infallible evidence is indeed fallible and finally the prosecution
system is being forced to review its whole forensic strategy (your
report, 22 December).
While this is bad enough, Lockerbie and other cases have also
revealed evidence of police and Crown Office incompetence, political
intrigue and a court and legal system struggling to cope.
A system where justice takes forever and at a prohibitive cost.
Slowly the realisation is dawning that we are faced with a justice
system no longer fit for purpose. A system where there is
very real danger of the innocent being found guilty and the guilty
escaping punishment. Instead of the usual face saving "first
aid" aimed at preserving the power and privilege of those
within the system, the time is long overdue for broad ranging
public and political debate aimed at creating an open, accountable
and accessible system.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The Scotsman, Monday 12 October 2009
Legal review guilty of ignoring justice
Michael Campbell's critical analysis (Letters,
10 October) of Lord Gill's proposals for "reforming"
Scotland's oppressive legal system implies the following: appointing
members of the judiciary to investigate our legal system with
a view to "improving" it almost guarantees that any
reforms will be cosmetic.
The complexion of the legal system might be improved, but the
heart of the system will remain intact – to the detriment
of those who are obliged to use it and the benefit of those who
operate and, therefore, control it: solicitors, advocates, sheriffs,
QCs, judges, the Faculty of Advocates and the Law Society of Scotland.
Lord Gill's depiction of party litigants as irresponsible children
who use the courts as a "playpen" is alarming and offensive.
Party litigants who attempt to vindicate their rights in
a Scottish court (as a consequence of their hapless and hopeless
lawyers) are confronted with incomprehensible rules of court,
hostile judges, colossal costs, tactical delays, scheming lawyers
and less than optimum judicial neutrality.
Lord Gill recognises the benefits of allowing party litigants
to use McKenzie Friends, but the party litigant will not determine
when and how to deploy them – that will be left to the "discretion"
of the judges.
If Lord Gill really wanted to improve access to the courts, he
should have ensured that their use was determined not by the court
but by the party litigant and he would have allowed them (if appropriate)
to actually advocate the party litigant's case.
Lord Gill's 674-page report will not effectively improve access
to justice in Scotland because it doesn't address the fundamental
issue: many of Scotland's lawyers are seldom held to account for
the consequences of deploying their very expensive gifts -
thanks to the expertise of the Law Society and the Faculty of
Advocates.
Thomas Crooks
Dundas Street
Edinburgh
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The Herald, 20 Aug 2007
There is an urgent need to have a completely independent regulator for solicitors
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? LINK
Thomas Crooks
81 Dundas St,
Edinburgh.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The Scotsman, Friday 26 September 2003
Campbell Deane’s article, "Why
the website campaign against ‘crooked lawyers’ is
missing the point" (Law, 23 September), was like a breath
of fresh air. For the first time since our campaign group,
Scotland Against Crooked Lawyers, came into being three
years ago, it has been acknowledged by a lawyer that there is
such a thing as a "crooked lawyer".
It is only right, as he said, that breaches of trust and theft
should be cracked down on by the courts. But he obviously
has no idea how reluctant police and the prosecuting services,
including the Lord Advocate, are to press charges against lawyers.
They customarily say a grievance must be pursued through the civil
courts, which is aimed at protecting "citizens above suspicion"
in the legal profession.
Inter alia, it also ensures more money is spread round the legal
fraternity in fees and legal aid assistance. Mr Deane also said:
"At the end of the day, the aggrieved party is not the one
who is out of pocket. The stolen money is reimbursed from the
solicitors’ guarantee fund." Has he any idea of how
seldom aggrieved parties succeed through the complaints procedure
provided by the Scottish Parliament? Our entire membership will
warrant that it is virtually impossible.
William Burns
Shore Road,
South Queensferry,
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The Herald, Monday, May 2004
Your “Accountancy &
Law” page (24 May) featured a singularly inaccurate briefing:
“Usher on the warpath again.” The aristocrat
Stuart Usher certainly submitted a petition to the Scottish Parliament,
but he did so on behalf of the campaign group Scotland Against
Crooked Lawyers (SACL), providing The Herald with
a copy of the petition. LINK
Having read the terms of the petition, it must have been patently
clear to your reporter, Paul Rogerson, that - although Stuart Usher
acts as a tireless coordinator of SACL - the petition was lodged
on behalf of its entire membership. It was a gross misrepresentation
to associate it with him alone.
Your main feature that day was about the Law Society of Scotland’s
master insurance policy facing an investigation by the Office of
Fair Trading, along with accusations from the Scottish Consumer
Council that aggrieved clients believe that solicitors Marsh UK,
who broker the policy, LINK
and the insurance companies, are in league to the detriment of complainers.
You have also recently published the criticisms of Linda Costello
Baker, the Legal Services Ombudsman (front page lead, 18 May) regarding
the failure of the Law Society to follow up scores of complaints
that the country’s legal watchdog believes warrants a full-scale
investigation.
For over 3½ years, SACL have been at the forefront of trying to effect radical change to our draconian legal system and believe it is a consequence of our persistent efforts that has compelled these less effective offices to illustrate they are not just paper tigers.
Perhaps if SACL’s petition to the Scottish Parliament had reached the hands of someone other than your legal-page brief, our group, our petition, and our coordinator would have been accorded a modicum of appreciation.
William Burns
Shore Road
South Queensferry
PS The petition followed. LINK
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
