Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Legal watchdog roles for ex-police chiefs

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 11 January 2008
By JOE QUINN
TWO former senior police officers have been appointed to an independent body for legal complaints, it was announced yesterday.
Ian Gordon, former deputy chief constable of Tayside Police, and Douglas Watson, an ex-head of CID with the Lothian and Borders force who worked on the Jodi Jones case, will be among the four non-lawyer members of the newly-created Scottish Legal Complaints Commission.

Other non-lawyer members are former nursing director Linda Pollock and George Irvine, former director of social work at North Ayrshire council.

The new body will be chaired by Jane Irvine, who is currently the Scottish Legal Services' ombudsman. It will begin work in October.

Kenny MacAskill, the justice secretary, said: "I am confident that independent scrutiny will safeguard the rights of both the profession and users of legal services throughout Scotland. "

The Law Society of Scotland said the new body would act as a "gateway" for all complaints about solicitors, adding that it would continue to receive complaints, via the commission, about solicitors' conduct.



Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 10 January 2008 9:28 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Legal Issues
 
1

Peter Cherbi,

Edinburgh 11/01/2008 01:02:55
A rather odd choice for Chairman given the SLCC was supposed to be a break from the past, where the Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman hasn't really done much for client complaints against how poorly the Law Society has regulated the legal profession over the years ...

Too much interference in the appointments stage from the legal profession itself sadly ... but we will just have to wait & see how good or bad the SLCC will be ...

One thing is for sure, it won't be addressing the problems the Law Society and the SLSO have caused clients of the past ... still waiting to be addressed.
2

2Right,

On Location 11/01/2008 01:14:49
Exactly what are they supposed to be independent of ?
Going by this bunch recently selected they are not independent of Judiciary and they can be seen as people who will continue to allow the cover ups to continue with vested interests.

What a sad day for Mr MacAskill to try to claim these people as independent is an insult

I note he has also said SCCRC are independent yet 95% of them are from the legal profession and Judiciary.

Mr MacAskill clearly is not fit to appoint anyone and he should resign
3

Peter Cherbi,

Edinburgh 11/01/2008 01:49:15
#2 2Right,

I'm surprised a bit about the way Kenny MacAskill has allowed the SLCC appointments & formation process to run, considering the fact that probably the best man in the Scottish Government today, John Swinney, has done so much on the issue of the problems with 'crooked lawyers' which brought about the formation of the SLCC from the passing of the LPLA (Scotland) Act 2007 in the first place.

If you watch this : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBKwGzeKtEE
you will see what a highly skilled and honourable politician Mr Swinney is in how he challenged the head of the Law Society himself on an issue which has caused so much controversy over the years - the Law Society interfering in claims & complaints against solicitors.

Given what came out of the J2 hearings, featured in that clip, I have to wonder why the current Legal Services Ombudsman, who has known about these things for many years and did nothing, managed to secure the position of Chairman ... Is that consistent with accountable transparent Government I wonder ?
4

2Right,

On Location 11/01/2008 02:12:27
# Peter 3

Not surprised considering some of the complaints against this Law society, They need to protect their members.
Watched the video above and it is clear Mr Swinney could have done more.
It is also clear the Memorandum created room for serious malpractice complaints against Douglas Mills but nothing was done and he is still president of the Law Society and running the show despite misconduct within.
It is clear from the appointments the cover-ups will continue.
Wonder how much The Law Society advertised these vacancies before appointing this bunch?
The SNP are looking like they are to act the same as past Governments and not allow Accountability, Openness and Honesty to be part of their Agenda's
5

open,

west coast 11/01/2008 05:39:18
Our group have fought long and hard for change to Scotlands corrupt legal system.To put two senior police officers on the NEW independent body shows a complete failure to grasp the fact that the lay appointments should have had NO connection with any part of that legal system.

Our group have provided proof to inquiries that show Scottish police have been turning a blind eye to lawyer fraud in the past yet police officers are now being asked to act as safeguarders for the general public?This is as outrageous as the MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING between the police and law society in relation to whether they can investigate lawyer criminality reported by the public .Or in fact require the sanctioning of the godfathers running the law society to pursue crimes associated with the massive swindling of our members and indeed many thousands of victims of Scotlands corrupt civil process .

MacAskill and Aitken's appointments have been as suspect as the failures to protect the public from the RAMPANT criminality of a legal system that has been getting away with murder for far to long,destroying the lives of innocent victims of a tyranny that makes all other crimes in Scotland pale by comparison.

UTTERLY OUTRAGEOUS WHICH WE WILL ENSURE THEY WILL NOT GET AWAY WITH.

LJPR LEGAL JUDICIAL POLITICAL REFORMERS

Masonic Chief Constables OUT Accountability IN




6

donald,

glasgow 11/01/2008 06:58:30
Independent polis polices polis.
7

an interested party,

11/01/2008 09:37:00
or the blind leading the blind
8

abracadabra,

Bathgate 11/01/2008 11:50:59
I share the concerns of the contributors as I personally know a number of the committee.
Each and every one of the committee are dedicated establishment figures who will produce reports of undoubted excellence but will say nothing
9

Peter Cherbi,

Edinburgh 11/01/2008 12:41:28
I think the bigger problem here is that the hard work which was put in by everyone, including the likes of consumer organisations, campaigners, victims and even some members of the legal profession to pass the reforming LPLA (Scotland) Act 2007 is not being translated in to the spirit of the legislation, passed by the former Labour Scottish Executive.

Given all that has happened over the years, including the excellent input by the Scotsman into the 'regulation of the legal profession' debate which may even have started the basis of the current legislation now being spun out for the profession's interest, I would hope that other parties within the Parliament may shine a light on these events, and strongly monitor the 'progress' if any, of the new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission.

If these events prove anything, it is that users of legal services - the public, need to be represented by their own organisation, as one which is consigned to the 'appointed by the legal profession & government' procedures, does not really live up to the public interest.

The Scottish Government Press Release, showing also the level of lawyer involvement on the new 'independent' commission is available here :

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2008/01/10100426
10

Guga II,

Rockall 11/01/2008 12:46:44
Kenny MacAskill is not fit for purpose, and it is time wee Eck got rid of him.

The appointment of a couple of ex-filth to these positions is a joke; as is having establishment figures to police the establishment.
11

2Right,

On Location 13/01/2008 03:41:43
Can anyone tell us why after passing Law Degree's at our universities all lawyers must Join The Law Society and must use their Insurance "The Master Policy" ?
The master policy should be investigated for price fixing.
If one company owned all supermarkets, there would be a public outcry.
The same should apply to insurance companies and the Law Society.
Lawyers should be allowed to pick their own Insurance this is what competition and fairness is all about.
SNP should look into this with the utmost urgency.
One insurance company should not be allowed to benefit alone from Lawyers.

After passing all exams Lawyers should be free to practice without having to join the Law Society in this supposed freedom of choice society.

This would be a great starting point for SLCC to look into, Price fixing by law Society for lawyers insurance
12

Peter Cherbi,

Edinburgh 14/01/2008 01:05:25
#11 2Right

"all lawyers must Join The Law Society and must use their Insurance "The Master Policy"

That occurs because the Law Society has the law, can make the rules and has the political support to ensure that if you aren't a member of the Law Society of Scotland and don't pay into the Master Insurance Policy, you don't practice law.

If the Master Policy should be investigated (which it certainly should) it should be for the OFT and perhaps John Swinney's office to carry out. The SLCC does not have such a remit.

Lawyers certainly should be allowed to choose their own insurance. Plenty have said so to me but speaking out against the Master Policy is taboo in the legal profession.

"After passing all exams..." - any changes to freedom of practice will only come with an opened legal services market - which will have to have a fully independent regulator with strong powers of enforcement of standards, entry requirements, adherence to rules, and deal effectively with complaints investigations.

The SLCC doesn't really have a remit to cover an opened legal services market, and I doubt the commission as it currently stands would be up to such a task.

Perhaps enquiring journalists might want to ask who insured the Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman's office for all these years - the very same company which insures lawyers for professional negligence and ensures if they don't subscribe to that insurance, they don't practice law.

Conflict of interest or what ?
13

2Right,

On Location 16/01/2008 00:53:19
#12 Peter
The Royal Sun Alliance must be raking it in eh if every lawyer needs to use them before they are allowed to practice.
I bit like saying "if you want to be a police" (Or any profession) you must pay us first.
Lawyers should not be forced to pay extortionate prices fixed by the Law Society to ensure Law Society keeps control.
Absolutely Shocking in this day and age.
I wonder if as you say the Ombudsman is also insured by the same company which is in total a conflict of interest.
Will any Lawyer go against his own insurance company?
This would mean he would not be able to operate.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 

More Scotland

More Scotland >>

More Legal Issues

More Legal Issues >>

Features

Online Supplements
Paperboy Paperboy Customised news
Scottish Business Briefing Scottish Business Briefing ...Sign up today


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.