Scots legal profession fears open markets, competition in legal services and client's choice of legal representation

Roll on ‘Tesco Law’ and the entrance of those into the legal profession not managed, threatened and bullied by the Law Society of Scotland ...

The Scotsman reports :

Opening up the market to competition will benefit Scotland, but we will need some help

By Andrew Godfrey

KENNY MacAskill, the Justice Secretary, is moving to legislation to deregulate legal services, and there is an appetite among law firms to understand how they can benefit from any changes, and how to fund potential business growth.

The proposed reform of the legal services market, which will free up how legal firms currently operate, provides many more opportunities for solicitors' businesses to go forward.

The opening-up of the market is likely to lead to more mergers or acquisitions accompanied by an increase in multi-disciplinary practices, commoditisation and franchising.

The mood among bankers is understandably cautious because of their need to justify facilities that they make available, but there is little doubt that banks and other lenders will be happy to introduce capital. The question is whether it will be available at the right price.

Multi-disciplinary practices (MDPs) have been with us before, largely in the form of the law firms tied to the Big Five (as they were) accounting firms.

In order for such practices to work, they must rely upon internal cross-referral within the MDP. In the case of the accounting/law tie up, this means cutting across significant numbers of established referral relationships, asking, for example, a corporate finance partner to refer his work internally to lawyers within his new firm. This can be difficult to achieve.

That said, it is easy to see the appeal of an MDP operating in a niche such as tax, where tax lawyers and tax accountants can work alongside each other to shape a solution.There are huge opportunities to form effective one-stop-shops.

Consideration must also be given to client reaction and how any such firm may be perceived, especially if part of the business revolves around volume-based or commoditised legal services. Take the example of a firm with a debt recovery arm that generates decent profits but where increased profile brings the possibility of a detrimental effect on the image of the legal services offered by the rest of the firm.

A number of firms will view such commoditised services, previously seen as being a less well-regarded division, in a new light – that of being appealing to external investors. These relatively non-lawyer intensive and scaleable businesses are seen as being the most likely area to lead in external investment.

In England, companies outside the legal profession are finding these commodity-based services represents an interesting business opportunity and the likes of HBoS and Co-op are making headway into a market with appealing profits.

While this aspect of legal reform is not on the agenda in Scotland, it is likely that firms may find themselves under increasing pressure to operate in a more business-like fashion, with the days of high profits being the norm being under threat. Add to this the prospect of a competing firm with external investment inducing high-quality individuals to join them, and we can see just as many threats as opportunities.

Kenny MacAskill has said he does not believe that Scottish firms which may require capital to fund expansion should be discriminated against. He has also made it clear that he wants changes to be regulated with distinctively Scottish solutions.

But Scotland's legal profession must also be able to compete outwith its borders. Scottish business will grow as a result of outward ambition.

Scotland's legal profession cannot maintain a competitive position by standing still.

• Andrew Godfrey, managing partner, Grant Thornton

Claim for anything, as long as its not against a lawyer !

Reminding us all we can lodge claims for just about anything, as long as its not a claim of negligence against a member of the legal profession - or any other friendly profession to lawyers who happen to be insured by the same insurers !

The Scotsman reports :

Don't forget that the repeat players have a massive advantage

By Brian Fitzpatrick

IN THE early 1970s, US legal theorist Marc Galanter published Why the "Haves" Come Out Ahead.

Nowadays, his central thesis might seem obvious and his characterisations a bit simplistic. He says the world of litigation is made up of "one-shotters" and "repeat players". One shotters are the majority of ordinary citizens who rarely find themselves in a court case – perhaps a divorce or custody battle or suing after an accident.

Repeat players are those involved "in many similar litigations over time". Examples would be the prosecution service, insurance companies, commercial lenders and landlords.

One-shotters are generally individuals, have few resources and are litigating for immediate one-off outcomes. Repeat players tend to be relatively wealthy in scale and resources, and often "pursue long-run interests".

As seasoned litigators with deep wallets, repeat players enjoy what Galanter calls "advance intelligence" from going through similar litigations.

Professionals rather than enthusiastic amateurs, they can "structure the next transaction and build a record. It is the repeat player who writes the form contract, requires the security deposit, and the like".

As we look on at the behaviour of banks and finance houses who created the credit crisis and yet devolve its results on to more onerous and expensive obligations for individual customers Galanter's observations take on a current-day significance.

Northern Rock, amid all its problems, has little difficulty in repossessing homes at a rate outstripping its competitors and with much more chance of success than the debtor in financial straits, trying to keep a roof over his family's head.

The war-chest of experience built up by repeat players finds arms in expertise aided by an ability to access specialist lawyers and paid experts who service litigation.

The small-firm lawyer seeking to secure a report from a medico-legal expert might have to wait a while – the insurer who pays by return or instructs reports by the hundreds can secure a report in days.

The repeat player makes sure to secure the services of the highly expert major law firms. In turn those firms can access even more expert practitioners at the Bar while increasingly acting as vocal lobbyists for the interests of their clients, even if losing the odd individual case. The repeat player can bear the cost of losing cases far better than any individual. So, when negotiating, it can apply pressure the one-shotter might find irresistible.

If you are a spinally injured car accident victim with a claim of £2.5 million, a "final offer"of £2 million will make you think long and hard. The UK insurance industry, through huge investment in its case management system, knows better than any judge and most claimant lawyers just how much money is needed to see off a troubling claim.

It is not all one-sided. Here in Scotland expert claimant lawyers have, to some considerable extent, evened up the field. Asbestosis, deafness, white finger and other mass litigations would never have secured the sums achieved for thousands had there not been trade union-backed law firms trading blows with insurers.

Legal aid has also provided some measure of antidote, though, nowadays, with a legal aid certificate being somewhat more rare than the proverbial unicorn it represents more a case of providing some bandaging rather than proper even-handed access to justice.

The various equalities bodies have taken up cases and advanced the rights of women and ethnic minorities but with very straitened resources. Making sure that ordinary citizens can secure access, not just to the courts but to expert lawyers has to be at the heart of any debate on the future of our legal system.

Speaking recently in Edinburgh, Lord Rodger reminded lawyers that achieving justice between the parties "not just a result" was what our civil justice system should be about. As we discuss the next phase of Lord Gill's review of the courts we might bear in mind Lord Rodger's concerns that, when considering proposals to divert personal injury cases to the Sheriff Courts, account has to be taken of the potential of diverting work from a globally recognised centre of expertise. Gallanter would have smiled.

• Brian Fitzpatrick is an advocate in the Ampersand stable

Scottish Legal Complaints Commission inherits Chief Executive from Law Society Professional Conduct Committee

The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission has a new Chief Executive - Eileen Masterman, who herself served on the Law Society's Professional Conduct Committee.

Who next from the Law Society to jump over to the new Law Society SLCC ?

The Journal reports :

Complaints Commission has chief executive

Eileen Masterman to oversee running of new legal complaints body

News, 23 June 2008

The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission has announced the appointment of its first chief executive.

Eileen Masterman, who will join the Commission, on 11 August, brings extensive experience in senior roles in both the private and public sector. She is a former chief executive of Homes for Scotland and was previously director of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors in Scotland.

Her current complaints investigation role at the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman reflects past similar positions, notably with the Commissioner for Local Administration in Scotland. In addition she has been a volunteer lay representative dealing with complaints of professional misconduct and poor professional service in a wide range of organisations.

The Commission, which is expected to begin operations on 1 October, will handle service complaints against legal practitioners in Scotland, and oversee the handling of misconduct complaints by the Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates. Approximately 44 staff will work there.

Chair of the Commission, Jane Irvine, said: “I am very pleased that Eileen has agreed to join the Commission. She brings with her a wealth of experience and the skills in complaints and dispute resolution from various professional backgrounds. These will be necessary to manage the new processes we are introducing to resolve complaints about legal services within Scotland.” service complaints against legal practitioners in Scotland, oversee handling of misconduct complaints by the Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates. Approximately 44 staff will work at the Commission.

Lawyers reply to Law Society 'standards consultation' - less standards please

The Law Society of Scotland's consultation on standards suffered from a lack of replies from Scotland's 10,500 solicitors ... nevertheless it didn't stop the Law Society coming up with a few replies of its own !

The Scotsman reports :

Those who want to wear badge of solicitor respond to new standards

By Jennifer Veitch

MORE than 100 responses have been received so far in the Law Society's flagship consultation to set new standards of service and behaviour for solicitors.

The regulatory body has produced draft guidelines on the appropriate standards of service and conduct that those who want to wear the "badge of solicitor" must uphold.

As well as updating the broad principles that all Scottish solicitors should follow, the review aims to clarify the level of service that the public can expect from lawyers.

The society hopes that the standards – which could be in place by the end of this year – will help to prepare the profession for the new complaints-handling system, due to begin when the new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission opens in October.

Clearer standards about service may help solicitors to communicate with clients and to manage expectations of the services that they will – and will not – provide. Recently, the Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman highlighted a lack of clarity surrounding the level of service offered to clients, particularly in conveyancing cases.

And, as competition is likely to increase following the vote in favour of moving towards alternative business structures, a new set of standards may also help to inform the public about the benefits of instructing a solicitor.

Philip Yelland, the society's head of regulation, said the standards would not offer a check-list for how solicitors should conduct their business, but should make expectations clearer for all concerned.

"We want to try to help clarify and make clearer for the users or potential users of legal services just what the standards they might expect are," he said. "In terms of service, we are going to be talking about very broad principles because every business does things slightly differently, but there are core issues in terms of service standards which need to dealt with.

He added: "What we are doing here is not producing a tick-list of things. We are trying to look at what's there and say: how can we improve this, how we can make it better so someone going in to a solicitor's office has a better understanding of what might happen?"

Yelland said he expected that the new standards would also help solicitors when faced with service complaints, soon to be dealt with by the new commission.

"The standards that will be set and the way they will be articulated will be very broad principles, and from that perspective if there is a complaint, I would expect the solicitor would have to show the commission – 'if that's the broad principle, this is how I met the broad principle'."

A group has been set up to develop the consultation, chaired by Dr Bronwen Cohen, chief executive of Children in Scotland.

Cohen has been keen to ensure that the review takes on board the views of vulnerable groups such as children and young people, and Yelland said further work to clarify standards for specialist legal services may arise from the consultation.

"There may be other things that flow out of this – for example, solicitors who are dealing with children," Yelland said.

"That is a very different market to dealing with adults. There are issues around language and the way you deal with them, and there may be things that fall out of the consultation that will enable us to look at particular areas and how we might deal with them differently."

The consultation responses will be reviewed over the summer with a final set of standards expected to be presented to solicitors at the society's Special General Meeting in September. If approved by the SGM, Yelland noted that the new standards could be in place by the end of the year.

"The reality is that what we are saying is not new – you could argue we are reviewing and restating and improving the wording on what people are already doing. But if there's part of the package that may become a practice rule, then that would need to be approved."

The new standards are being designed to work in tandem with existing rules on conduct and behaviour, in recognition of obligations not only to clients, but to the courts and the rest of the profession.

The draft standards on service are based on four broad principles – competence, communication, diligence and respect.

The standard of competence would require a solicitor to "know and apply the relevant law", "keep up-to-date" and "ensure that those to whom work is delegated are properly trained and supervised".

According to the draft standards, a solicitor would also have to consider "the nature and complexity" of any work, as well as whether he or she had the necessary knowledge and experience. Solicitors would also have to make an "ongoing commitment" to continuous professional development.

The communication standard would require solicitors to clearly explain and define services in letters of engagement, including costs and information on how complaints would be handled.

The standard on diligence would require the solicitor to "deliver on commitments, act in the best interests of each client, maintain and review systems of work and have prompt and transparent fee arrangements."

To uphold the standard on respect, solicitors would have to "treat each person as an individual" and "recognise diversity, different cultures and values".

Standards on conduct would reinforce the need for solicitors to be independent, giving advice "free from external influences or personal interests" and acting in the best interests of the client, balanced with their duties to the rest of the profession.

The draft conduct standards also cover conflict of interest, confidentiality, competence, communication and diversity.

Yelland added that he was pleased by the level of response to the consultation so far, but encouraged more lawyers and members of the public to take part in the consultation, which ends next Monday.

"The standards consultation is on the society's website, and we really want people – both solicitors and users of legal services – to fill it in. It looks at what is already in the Code of Conduct in terms of behaviour and the issues around service standards and asks people to confirm basically whether what we are thinking about saying is what they would expect.

• More information: www.lawscot.org.uk

MacAskill to unveil legislation entitling Scots to raise asbestos related claims.

Scots Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill is apparently to unveil new legislation at the Scottish Parliament which will allow anyone in Scotland to raise legal actions if they are suffering from asbestos related illnesses.

There are a few situations of lack of legislation on claims which could do with new bills in Parliament, Mr Justice Secretary …

Scotland on Sunday reports :

Bill will open way to cash claims for asbestos victims

By Eddie Barnes
Political Editor

JUSTICE Secretary Kenny MacAskill is to unveil a new bill at Holyrood which will entitle anyone in Scotland to raise an action if they contracted an asbestos-related condition called pleural plaques, a scarring of the lungs.

But the move is set to trigger a row with insurers this week as it will effectively overturn a ruling preventing workers claiming millions of pounds of compensation for the condition.

The ruling will help hundreds of men – mostly former workers in shipyards – who suffer from diseases such as mesothelioma, a condition which people with pleural plaques are prone to catch.

The Lords ruled last year that former workers with pleural plaques were not entitled to compensation because the condition itself is not a disease.

But MacAskill's decision has infuriated insurers, who claim that, as pleural plaques does not itself cause any harm, there should not be any compensation – levels of which could reach millions of pounds.

Industry sources are also warning that the move could set a precedent for anyone with a condition to claim compensation even if it does not directly cause any harm. They point out that they do already compensate people with pleural plaques who then go on to contract a more serious condition.

However, the move will be met with delight by campaigners for the Clyde shipyard workers, opening up the possibility that they will be able to claim several million pounds in compensation.

Glasgow lawyer Frank Maguire claims to have 600 clients who have contracted the condition who, he says, will all lodge claims for damages. Sufferers could be entitled to around £15,000 each in compensation, a possible total of £9m.

Maguire insists that pleural plaques is just the "calling card" for more serious conditions and that people who have it should therefore be compensated.

A Scottish Government spokesman confirmed that the plans would be unveiled this week. He said: "The Justice Secretary has already made clear the Scottish Government's determination to reverse the House of Lords judgement and ensure that people with pleural plaques can continue to raise an action for damages."

He went on: "It is right that those who suffer the effects of asbestos as a result of our industrial past are able to claim for damages and we will introduce a bill before recess as we promised to right this wrong."

However, an insurance industry source said: "Everyone agrees that people with serious asbestos-related illnesses like mesothelioma should be compensated as quickly as possible. Insurers do this. But the medical community, and the House of Lords, agree that pleural plaques are symptomless, cause no harm to those who have them and do not lead to the development of any other asbestos-related medical conditions.

"By pursuing this bill on a point of principle Kenny MacAskill risks damaging Scotland's financial services competitiveness – in direct contrast to the reassurance of Alex Salmond and John Swinney during Global Financial Services Week less than a month ago. The Government should rethink their approach."

The Holyrood bill will put Gordon Brown under massive pressure to now follow suit at Westminster.

The bill is certain to pass as it is backed by both Labour and the Liberal Democrats in the Scottish Parliament.

Privy Council to hear murder conviction appeal over lack of disclosure on witness statements

The Privy Council, the UK's highest appeal court is to hear a bid to overturn a murder conviction, where crucial witness statements were apparently not disclosed to the defence at the time of trial.

The Sunday Herald reports :

Attempt to overturn murder conviction as legal team casts doubt on evidence

Rare legal move as UK’s highest appeal court prepares to hear case

By John Bynorth, Home Affairs Editor

A MAN will take his bid to overturn his murder conviction to the UK's highest appeal court after the High Court blocked his appeal bid.

Brendan Dixon's legal team has argued that crucial witness statements, which they claim could have cleared him, were not disclosed to the defence at his trial.

Now Dixon has been granted leave to appeal directly to the judicial committee of the Privy Council after statements were uncovered which his legal team suggests cast serious doubts about whether his conviction for the murder of Margaret Irvine, 91, in 2003, is safe.

It is a rare legal move, with only a handful of cases every year winning an appeal directly to the council's judicial committee which sits as the final court of appeal on devolved issues.

If Dixon, 38, is successful, legal experts believe it could spark a number of similar appeals to the council on the controversial issue of non-disclosure of evidence.

One legal source told the Sunday Herald: "If the decision of the appeal court is overturned, and quite comprehensively, the Lord Advocate will presumably have to re-investigate a large number of cases where there has been non-disclosure.

"It's difficult to overstate how important this case is in trying to get at the issue of historical non-disclosure of evidence. It has been a shameful stain on the justice system. It's pretty obvious that full disclosure has not taken place with Dixon."

Dixon, 38, and his co-accused Patrick Docherty, 42, were found guilty at the High Court in Kilmarnock in May 2005 of Irvine's murder in Galston, Ayrshire, despite no forensic evidence linking them to the crime.

Their trial ended shortly before the practice of disclosure was tightened following the Privy Council's decision to quash the convictions of James Holland, who was convicted of assault and robbery, and Alvin Sinclair. In the case, the Crown's refusal to disclose documents at their trial was found to have breached their right to a fair trial under the European Convention on Human Rights.

Docherty's appeal team has uncovered evidence which it claims was not presented to the defence, including a restaurant worker who wasn't called to give evidence, and non-disclosure is one of the grounds for his appeal. The witness also provided precognition testimony that she had seen two men outside the dead woman's house on the day her body was found. One of the men, who was picked out from a photo identification, gave evidence for the prosecution.

Dixon and Docherty's is one of a number of cases before the appeal courts which preceded the Holland and Sinclair case. Any decision in a Scottish case by the Privy Council's judicial committee, which sits in a courtroom in Downing Street, is binding on Scottish courts.

The development came after Lord Coulsfield, in a report commissioned by the previous administration, last year called on the government to introduce legislation to ensure that prosecutors are legally bound to hand over full information to defence lawyers before a trial. The government is consulting on the practice, which is already in force in England and Wales.

The legal source added: "It's a high risk strategy to go to the Privy Council as if it says no to the appeal on the grounds of disclosure that's it. It's ironic that given the nature of the legislation a court sitting outside Scotland has jurisdiction in criminal matters north of the border."

Dixon's lawyer Graham Cunningham said: "Had this evidence been available there might have been a different verdict and this decision is a big step forward. This information is beneficial to my client's appeal. The best scenario is the Privy Council saying this evidence was so vital there was a miscarriage of justice."

Dixon's brother-in-law Kevin Donald, 36, who has led a three-year campaign to clear the father-of-two, said: "Brendan is buoyed by this news. There were no DNA or fingerprints linking Brendan to Margaret Irvine's murder - and no sightings of him. If we get the documents, it will help prove his innocence and show that a murderer is still walking around. This is the furthest we have ever got with this case and raises wider issues about how the Crown held back documents which could have cleared people."

Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini, or the Solicitor General Frank Mulholland, is expected to argue on behalf of the Crown at the two-day hearing, which is set down for next month, that Dixon's defence did have access to the documents and could, therefore, have used it as part of his defence.

The Crown Office declined to comment on the case.

Scottish Legal Aid Board running costs come in for criticism - make the industry pay instead ?

SLAB, the Scottish Legal Aid Board, which manages legal aid in Scotland, has come in for some harsh criticism over its costs.

Well, since the money goes to the legal profession, because the Law Society of Scotland has ensured that no one other than a lawyer can claim legal aid, how about making the legal profession pay for SLAB's running costs ? Problem solved !

The Herald reports :

Legal aid ‘wastes cash on red tape’

DAVID LEASK

Running costs at the Scottish Legal Aid Board have jumped two-thirds in a decade despite a substantial drop in its caseload.

The quango yesterday confirmed that its administration budget increased by 65% over the past 10 years to nearly £13m this year while the number of grants it issued fell some 34,000 in the same period.

The board, however, defended extra spending on staff and computer systems which it believes will give the taxpayer better value for money on its biggest outgoing, the aid it provides for hundreds of thousands of legal and civil cases.

It did so as its record on red tape was attacked by one of Scotland's most prominent solicitors, Mike Dailly of the Govan Law Centre, in a major speech.

Mr Dailly yesterday told an audience of senior lawyers and industry experts that the board was "diverting" public money into bureaucracy while access to civil justice became a privilege only of the very poor, who are entitled to legal aid, and the very rich, who can afford their own lawyers.

Speaking at an Edinburgh conference sponsored by the Faculty of Advocates, Mr Dailly said: "Access seems to have regressed while bureaucracy has widened. Legal aid expenditure is officially demand-led and uncapped. Yet it might be thought what has happened is more public money has been diverted into bureaucracy and devices which have squeezed demand and restricted take-up."

He added: "Legal aid bureaucracy has grown exponentially over the last few years. Often a client does not have the information now required by the board and solicitors will have to write to local authorities, previous employers, and so on. The time and effort now required to obtain legal aid has become a major task in its own right."

Mr Dailly's Govan Law Centre is one of several community-based legal practices designed, like the board, to help ensure fair access to justice for all. Many clients are poor. But even those on benefits can struggle to get legal aid. The board is currently responsible for around £160m of grants a year, although it is able to claim some of that back when clients it funds win their cases. Its official net spending on grants was £150m in 2006-2007, up from £136m in 1996-1997. Mr Dailly, however, does not believe that this rise warrants increased spending on administration.

Solicitors, he said, are voting with their feet. He said: "The board confirms that in 2006 there were 736 firms registered for civil legal aid work, while in 2007 that number fell by 8% to 678." Forms for legal aid, he said, were long and off-putting, some stretching to 40 pages in length.

A spokesman for the board said much of the new spending on administration was designed to cut bureaucracy. Some of the administration budget went on new computers that are helping solicitors make online applications for grants.

"We have also invested in staff who are involved in quality insurance and checking for fraud. Our staff uncovered one fraud worth £1.7m," he said.

Higher administration costs, the board argues, have helped save money on grants.

The spokesman added: "Over the next few years we will start to see reductions in costs. Our budget for administration will stay the same way for the next three years."

English criminal justice system receives calls for change - Scotland next ?

The criminal justice system in England & Wales is apparently perceived by the public as "distant, unaccountable and unanswerable", according to a recent review as reported by the Daily Telegraph newspaper.

That would be the same as Scotland then ? So we all need a change.

The Telegraph reports :

'Unaccountable' criminal justice system must change, says review

By Caroline Gammell

Changes must be made to the criminal justice system because it is perceived by the public as "distant, unaccountable and unanswerable", a year-long Government review has concluded.

The planned criminal justice reforms are designed to boost public confidence in criminal justice in England and Wales

More than 30 proposals have been put forward in the report, including the idea that community sentences become more "visible and demanding".

Elderly victims of crime may get anonymity in court, while similar special measures may also be made available for disabled victims and those too frightened to speak out against their assailants.

The planned reforms are designed to boost public confidence in criminal justice in England and Wales after Gordon Brown ordered a review of the system.

The proposals have been drawn up by Louise Casey, the Government's crime and communities adviser and former head of Tony Blair's Respect task force.

She said people did not believe crime had fallen, and thought the law was stacked in favour of offenders' rights. Her review concluded the system was seen as "distant, unaccountable and unanswerable".

Miss Casey said offenders ordered to carry out community punishment should be forced to wear high-visibility bibs to identify them as criminals.

"Once these people commit crimes they disappear into the system," she said. "We need to get over some of the hand-wringing that says we cannot put them in a uniform."

Work projects for offenders would be re-named "community payback" and run by private companies and other organisations such as charities, rather than the Probation Service.

She also called for the "intensity" of sentences be increased, so offenders spend five days a week - or three nights a week and one day a weekend if employed - carrying out their tasks such as litter-picking or cleaning up graffiti.

Currently offenders are allowed to complete an order over a period of years.

The report also called for a "public commissioner on crime" to champion people's concerns within government, and a new performance target to measure public confidence in the system.

It proposed stripping the Home Office of responsibility for producing national crime statistics, with the task handed to an independent organisation.

The report was based on the views of 13,000 people in England and Wales, consulted over an eight-month period.

It found that 55 per cent of the public believed crime was the most important issue facing Britain, while 29 per cent thought sentences were too lenient.

Scottish Legal Complaints Commission not to be 'new Sheriff in town' as legislation intended

The Law Society of Scotland remains slightly bitter about the existence of the new service complaints regulator - the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission .. but how can that be, because the SLCC has been stuffed with around 39 members of staff from the Law Society itself, together with a few leavings from Law Society committees.

At any rate, the battle is on to convince the public the same people who maligned complaints against lawyers at the Law Society can do a better and more honest job at the new complaints commission .... pull the other one please !

Peter Cherbi’s “A Diary of Injustice in Scotland” reports more on the matter here : Law Society ‘writes rules’ for Scottish Legal Complaints Commission as confidence drops in new regulator

The Scotsman reports :

There's a new sheriff in town

By Jennifer Veitch

FROM 1 October, the Scottish legal profession will have a new sheriff in town. On that date, the controversial Scottish Legal Complaints Commission will begin its work dealing with the grievances of unhappy clients across Scotland.

At present, if they cannot be resolved by the firm’s client relationship partner – a compulsory post in each legal outfit – complaints are handled by the Law Society, the Faculty of Advocates, and the Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman, and although these bodies will remain, there is confusion over how they will hand over power to the Commission and how it will operate after it begins. As the new body prepares to take charge, we look at the fine print.

What is the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission?

A new independent gateway for complaints about lawyers. The Commission will be a so-called “one-stop-shop” for consumers, and its main role will be to investigate legal service complaints.

Controversially, the Commission will have the power to award compensation of up to £20,000 if inadequate professional service (IPS) is shown to have caused “loss, inconvenience or distress” to clients.

What are the Commission’s powers?

Its powers are set out in the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007. Apart from taking responsibility for handling service complaints out of the hands of lawyers, the most significant change will be that compensation for IPS will be four times higher than the current maximum paid out by the Law Society. The Commission can also compel lawyers to reduce fees, redo work or rectify mistakes at their own expense.

If complaints are upheld, the Commission will charge case fees of between £200 and £400 to firms if a settlement is reached through mediation.

Clients will not be charged if a complaint is not upheld, but the Commission will weed out complaints that are “vexatious, frivolous or totally without merit”. It will also promote early resolution of disputes between a firm and clients.

When will the Commission actually take over complaints handling?

Officially, it becomes the new gateway from 1 October, but there may be a significant time lag before it actually investigates and rules on any matters.

According to the Commission’s draft rules – currently out for consultation – it will investigate complaints if the service that is the cause of the complaint itself has been instructed after 1 October. It could look at historical complaints, but would not have the power to award the higher compensation and wants to avoid a two-tier system.

This means that it is likely that the old complaints system will continue to run for an indefinite period, handling any complaints about service that was instructed before 1 October.

Any consumers with non-urgent business who want the protection offered by the new system might wish to wait until after 1 October to instruct their lawyer.

What happens if a complaint is already being investigated on 1 October?

The Law Society and Faculty of Advocates will continue to investigate any complaints that are already ongoing.

What will happen to the Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman?

This body has powers to investigate the handling of complaints by the Law Society and Faculty of Advocates and will be abolished when the new Commission begins work. Provisions are being considered to allow the Commission to take on the Ombudsman’s function in relation to complaints instructed before 1 October.

What will happen to conduct complaints?

The Commission must refer conduct complaints about solicitors or advocates back to the Law Society or the Faculty as appropriate, but it will review the professional bodies’ handling of misconduct cases. It is also likely to be closely involved in cases where there is an overlap between service and conduct. For example, repeatedly poor service may become a conduct issue.

Who will run the Commission?

It will be chaired by Jane Irvine, the current Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman, and made up of four lawyer members – Professor Alan Paterson, David Smith, Margaret Scanlan and David Chaplin – and four lay members, Douglas Watson, Linda Pollock, George Irving and Ian Gordon. The Commission is independent of government, although member appointments are made by Scottish Ministers.

Who is paying for the Commission?

Apart from start-up costs from the Scottish Government, the short answer is the legal profession. It will be funded by a compulsory annual levy paid by all practising solicitors and advocates, and case fees from upheld complaints.

The Commission has set a budget of £2.6 million to cover the first nine months of operation. The levy will be collected by the Law Society and the Faculty of Advocates and invoices will be sent out this month. Most solicitors – with three or more years’ experience – will pay £307; around 50 per cent higher than first estimated. The levy has been adjusted to give discounts to trainees and newly qualified solicitors, who will pay £153, and in-house lawyers, who will pay £102. Advocates will pay £248.

How many complaints will the Commission get?

This depends on a number of factors. If clients perceive that it has an enhanced ability to resolve disputes – as well as a higher level of compensation – there may be an upsurge in complaints. Yet recent figures suggest the number of legal complaints has been falling. The Law Society’s last annual report stated that complaints about solicitors dropped by almost 30 per cent between 2006 and 2007.

Is any more information available?

The Commission has a new website that sets out its remit and includes consultation documents on its draft rules: www.scottishlegalcomplaints.com, and The Law Society is publishing regular updates for solicitors on its website: www.lawscot.org.uk

Crown’s attempt to limit Lockerbie appeal goes on

BBC News reports on the continuing attempts by Prosecutors to limit the appeal of Abdelbasset al Megrahi against his conviction over the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988.

Effort to limit Lockerbie appeal

Prosecutors have launched a legal bid to limit the scope of the Lockerbie bomber's appeal against conviction.

Lawyers for Abdelbasset al Megrahi have lodged full grounds of appeal with the Appeal Court in Edinburgh.

But the Crown said it should be limited to the issues raised by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission.

It referred Megrahi's case back to the appeal court last year. Megrahi is serving life for killing 270 people in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103.

Exhaustive investigation

It came down over the Scottish town of Lockerbie.

Megrahi, 56, is currently in Greenock prison serving a life sentence after being found guilty of mass murder after a trial at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands in 2001.

He lost his first appeal the following year.

Last June his case was referred back to the appeal court for a second time by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) on a number of specific terms, which have never been fully published.

Advocate depute Ronald Clancy QC told five judges, at the Court of Criminal, that the SCCRC carried out an exhaustive investigation and rejected 90 allegations.

These included numerous conspiracy theories about planting and tampering with evidence, he said.

He said Megrahi's team wanted to be able to return to these but that would be tantamount to allowing a second appeal on the same point as the first.

The hearing to decide on the ultimate scope of Megrahi's appeal is being heard by a panel of five judges and is scheduled to last four days.

Another Scots lawyer arrested in da Vinci art theft

Another arrest in the theft of the £30m Leonardo da Vinci masterpiece Madonna with the Yarnwinder from Drumlanrig castle.

This time, another lawyer it seems !

BBC News reports :

Sixth da Vinci case man in court

A sixth man has appeared in court in connection with the theft of a £30m Leonardo da Vinci masterpiece from a castle in the south of Scotland.

David Boyce, 61, of Airdrie, appeared in private at Dumfries Sheriff Court on a petition charged with conspiracy to rob and extort money.

He made no plea or declaration and was allowed bail.

The Madonna with the Yarnwinder painting was taken from Drumlanrig Castle, north of Dumfries, in 2003.

Five other men have previously appeared in the court at Dumfries in connection with the theft of the painting.

They all faced similar charges to Mr Boyce.

The da Vinci artwork was stolen from the Dumfriesshire estate in August 2003.

It was recovered last year in Glasgow as part of a major police operation.

UN Special Observer to Lockerbie Trial compares recent Megrahi appeal to intelligence operation.

As with anything involving Scots justice these days, scandals are easily pointed out being so visible and obvious even the most uninterested Scot can see a lack of justice, common sense, even perhaps .. honesty ? in the process ...

So, bearing that in mind, Dr Hans Köchler, the UN special observer in the Lockerbie trial has criticised the recent appeal of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi in the Scottish Courts, equating events to something more akin to an "intelligence operation" than a judicial process ...

Dr Köchler .. it happens so often in Scots law these days, many people have lost count !

Scotland on Sunday reports :

UN observer slams Megrahi appeal process

By Murdo MacLeod

A UNITED Nations observer has condemned UK and Scottish politicians for the "totalitarian" appeal process in the Lockerbie bombing case.

Dr Hans Köchler, the UN-appointed special observer to the Lockerbie trial, said the appeal by Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi had more in common with an "intelligence operation" than a judicial process.

Köchler, in a letter to a legal magazine, also argued that Megrahi's current appeal should be held outside Scotland, as was the original trial.

The Lockerbie disaster, on December 21, 1988, claimed the lives of 270 people, both in the aircraft and on the ground.

Megrahi was found guilty in January 2001 after a three-month trial at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands and lost an appeal the following year.

But a team of lawyers and investigators has continued working on the case and the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) referred it back to the Court of Criminal Appeal.

In his letter, which was sent to the Scottish legal magazine The Firm, Köchler attacked the UK Government for refusing to hand over documents which the defence claims are vital to their case.

The documents were provided by a foreign country and potentially undermine the prosecution case that the bomb timer was only provided to Libyans. The Government has claimed the handover of the documents could potentially damage national security.

Köchler wrote: "A fair trial requires the availability of evidence to both the prosecution and defence. Only in a totalitarian system would the executive power interfere in court proceedings and order the withholding of evidence and/or replace defence lawyers by approved lawyers."

He added: "The fact that the new appeal proceedings take place in Scotland is not in conformity with the original intergovernmental agreement on the Lockerbie trial, which provided extraterritorial arrangements, with the presence of UN-appointed observers, also for the appeal.

"Under the present circumstances, there is a total lack of transparency of the proceedings. The entire procedure, with the Public Interest Immunity as core issue of the appeal, looks more like an intelligence operation than a genuine undertaking of criminal justice."

Köchler also criticised Scottish parliamentarians, civic society and the Scottish media for failing to challenge the verdict of the court.

Former MP and veteran Lockerbie campaigner Tam Dalyell backed Köchler.

Dalyell said: "Hans Köchler is a good man and he is absolutely right with his criticisms. The behaviour of the Crown in this case has been disgusting and a disgrace to Scotland. I personally feel very responsible because I was one of those, along with others, who helped persuade the Libyans to hand over one of their nationals for trial."

But former Lord Advocate Lord Peter Fraser hit back at the criticisms of Scots Law.

Fraser, who originally indicted Megrahi, said: "I think that Scots Law is the fairest and most rigorous system in Europe. There was a trial and an appeal and a second appeal – that is one indication of how fair and open a system we have."

The criminal justice authorities in Scotland declined to say anything in reply to Köchler. Spokesmen for the Scottish Government, the Crown Office and the Advocate General for Scotland – who is acting for the Government in blocking the release of key documents – all refused to comment.

Megrahi's defence team also declined to comment.

Scottish Government sends another lawyer to Brussels to ensure Scots interests represented

The Scottish Government have decided to catch up with the Law Society of Scotland, who have had an extensive legislation blocking office set up at Brussels for years, by sending yet another lawyer (and member of the Law Society) to Brussels on full pay & expenses package 'to represent Scotland and see we are legally involved in the European Union'.

The Scotsman reports :

Taking Scotland's legal traditions to the heart of Brussels

By FIONA MacLEOD

SCOTLAND's justice system is to be enshrined in Europe, under long-term plans instigated by the Scottish Government. A dedicated lawyer from within the Scots legal system will be based in Brussels from September to ensure Scotland is legally involved in the European Union.

The SNP government has also committed to ensuring it is represented at every formal council meeting in the EU. This year, the country has been represented at every meeting, and Kenny MacAskill, the justice minister, plans to attend the next gathering
in Brussels on 24-25 July.

A Scottish Government representative last month attended the inaugural meeting of the EU's Justice Forum last month, which brings together legal practitioners, representatives of all member states, and other relevant groups, to provide a platform for the development of EU justice policies and practice in both civil and criminal law.

MacAskill says: "Scots law is distinct. It is essential therefore that its voice and interests are recognised. As well as speaking up for Scotland, our enhanced representation in Brussels will ensure that we have our eyes and ears on the ground at the heart of the EU."

Recently, the Scottish Government launched its Action Plan on European Engagement, which set out Scotland's political role and objectives in Europe in a bid to encourage direct engagement with other nations.

MacAskill adds: "It is important we have a say in the issues that matter to our citizens. Through actions such as the appointment of a dedicated lawyer in Brussels and our involvement with the EU's Justice Forum, we will ensure that the interests of our citizens and of our unique system of law are always represented by a strong voice."

The European Commission established the EU Justice Forum in May as a permanent forum for examining justice policy and practice across member states.

Members include the Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe – whose immediate past president was a Scottish advocate – and the European Association of Judges

Scots QC considering legal action over alleged 'sacking' claim

A complicated one ..

The Scotsman reports :

Scottish QC may take legal action over claim he was 'sacked' from murder inquiry team

By JOHN ROBERTSON

A SCOTTISH QC is considering legal action after claiming that he was sacked from a key role in an inquiry into the murder of a loyalist prisoner in Northern Ireland.

The inquiry chairman, retired Scottish judge Lord MacLean, announced a fortnight ago that Derek Batchelor had resigned, but last week the senior lawyer insisted he had not jumped, but had been pushed.

"I had no intention of leaving my post … It is important to ensure that the exact nature of my departure is known … I now feel obliged to consider legal action," said Batchelor.

The inquiry into the death of Billy "King Rat" Wright in the Maze Prison in 1997 – the leader of the Loyalist Volunteer Force was shot by republicans – was announced in 2004, and was in its 68th day of hearings at Banbridge courthouse, Co Down, when the sudden announcement was made.

Lord MacLean, one of the Lockerbie trial judges, who is chairing the three-member Wright inquiry panel, said that Batchelor had resigned as lead counsel – the person who questions witnesses and is largely responsible for the presentation of evidence.

Without giving any reasons for the loss of such an important figure in the inquiry, Lord MacLean said that the investigation of Wright's death would continue uninterrupted while a new QC was recruited to the post. In the meantime, junior counsel Murdo Macleod, another member of the Scottish Bar, would take over the examination of witnesses.

A clearly upset and angry Batchelor decided to present his account of events. "On 3 June, I was called to a meeting and was advised by the panel that complaints had been made over my handling of some staff matters. There was no doubt in my mind on leaving this meeting that I had been dismissed from the inquiry," he said.

"Contrary to subsequent reports, I have not resigned and I had no intention of leaving my post as the inquiry reaches critical stages. To avoid any doubt over my understanding of the situation, I have since offered to return to the inquiry but this has not been progressed.

"I do not wish to disrupt the work of the inquiry. It is essential that it continues and reaches a satisfactory conclusion. I am happy to offer assistance to any replacement counsel by sharing essential information, subject to certain limitations outwith my control.

"It is regrettable that I now feel obliged to consider legal action. However, I believe it is important to ensure that the exact nature of my departure is known and understood by all involved in this important investigation."

Batchelor declined to expand on his statement.

An honours graduate of Edinburgh University in 1971 and a former procurator-fiscal, Batchelor joined the Faculty of Advocates in 1987, and became a QC in 1998. He served for almost three years as a High Court prosecutor, and held the post of home advocate-depute, third in the Crown Office hierarchy behind the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General.

He also sat as a temporary sheriff and represented Tommy Sheridan when he was jailed in 1992 for breaching a court order by leading a protest that caused the cancellation of a warrant sale.

Scottish Councils compared to East German STASI secret police,'have general policy' of spying on Scots

Not content with some 7million CCTV cameras set about the whole of the UK, Scottish local authorities are now using spying powers to bug, film, and secretly enter peoples properties throughout Scotland in efforts to keep tabs on everyone from benefits claimants to critics, or whistle-blowing members of staff themselves.

The powers, originally granted to Councils to fight terrorism are now being used instead on everything from dog fouling to housing benefit claims.

It has also been revealed that some Councils have used bugging powers to find out what stories journalists are investigating concerning alleged 'failings' of Scots local authorities, and even it is claimed, spied on solicitors who were handling cases for clients with grievances against certain local authorities.

One solicitor who refused to be named said "some of the officials I have been dealing with have their own skeletons the public should be made aware of.” He added “Perhaps someone should spy on them too"

So, if your pet Jack Russell poops on the wrong pavement, expect the whirring, if suspicious, sound of a secret auto-focus lens in your living room from time to time …

The Sunday Herald reports :

Spy society

In 2002 Scottish councils were given the power to secretly film and bug citizens in the fight against terrorism. Now a watchdog claims local authorities are abusing the powers to target thousands of ordinary people.

By Investigations Editor Neil Mackay

SCOTTISH COUNCILS ARE USING SURVEILLANCE AND security powers intended to fight terrorism and organised crime in order to spy on ordinary members of the public suspected of petty offences such as breaching the smoking ban, playing music too loudly and dropping litter.

Local authority chiefs have ordered staff to spy on unwitting members of the public some 3579 times since being granted the powers in 2002. Under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa), councils have the power to secretly film and bug people, use paid spies to inform on a suspect's activities, and even intercept communications data such as mobile and landline use and information about email traffic.

The law was supposed to be introduced to deal with new threats to security in the 21st century such as global terrorism, international organised crime, internet crime and paedophilia. Information on the "misuse" of the Ripa powers by Scottish councils was gathered by the civil liberties pressure group and watchdog organisation, Scotland Against Criminalising Communities (SACC).

SACC researcher Alan Hinnrichs submitted freedom of information requests to all 32 councils. Twenty-six replied, revealing not only the frequent and haphazard use of the powers, but also the bad training and lack of safeguards and oversight that local authorities employ to protect the privacy and human rights of citizens.

SACC claims councils are abusing the civil liberties of the Scottish public and says civil servants and bureaucrats should not have such wide-ranging powers. The watchdog believes that spying on ordinary citizens should only be a power granted to the police or the security and intelligence services in cases of extreme danger such as threats to national security or to prevent major crime.

Of the councils which replied to the FoI requests, Edinburgh was found to be using the Ripa laws the most excessively, authorising spying actions 1252 times.

The council claimed "most commonly, directed surveillance is used by community safety staff to investigate complaints of anti-social behaviour. A small number of authorisations will be made by Environmental Health and Trading Standards staff investigating breaches of legislation relevant to their area of work. Finally, staff dealing with fraudulent benefit claims will have made a small number of applications".

Edinburgh also said it used "covert human intelligence sources" (CHIS) four times. A CHIS could be a friend paid to pass information to the council, or someone paid by the council to gather information on a target and relay details of their life back to local authority bureaucrats. Edinburgh Council defended Ripa as "an important tool" and said it only used the powers "as a last resort".

East Ayrshire used Ripa powers 94 times, mostly to monitor noise levels for Asbo applications. Powers were also invoked to monitor the sale of fireworks to minors.

In Falkirk, which used Ripa 380 times, citizens could be spied on for noise nuisance, littering, if they were suspected of driving a taxi without a licence, for breaching the smoking ban and if their expense claims were thought to be exaggerated.

Details from Moray showed just how badly informed and trained council staff were about the Ripa legislation. A restricted inspection report from the Office of Surveillance Commissioners dated September 2004 says the council's policy on using covert human intelligence sources was "clearly confused" and "displays a lack of understanding". "Every record" relating to covert human intelligence "was significantly defective".

Staff had not carried out risk assessments over the use of covert human intelligence, the report said, and "the need for them was not understood".

It added: "The chief executive, who is listed as an authorising officer for all directed surveillance and not just cases relating to confidential information, has still received no training." No central record of authorisations existed and the "provision of training has been very patchy". Some staff were "essentially self-taught" and others had received no training. Applications for spying powers were "never signed".

Perth and Kinross council admitted it used the powers six times to access "communications data". Covert human intelligence sources were employed twice and directed surveillance used 15 times. The Western Isles only employed the Ripa powers three times, twice for what is described as "anti-smoking" purposes and once because of the alleged misconduct of an employee.

Glasgow City Council said that on 44 occasions it used powers under the act regarding "the acquisition of telecommunications traffic data". These were in relation to suspected offences under the Consumer Credit Act, such as illegal money lending. Glasgow defended its use of Ripa saying it mostly used the powers to deal with serious criminal offences.

Richard Haley, secretary of SACC, said he was "astonished and baffled" by the misuse of Ripa, adding: "We need to be clear that this is not about a few more CCTV cameras. This is directed surveillance, likely to obtain private information on ordinary people. We are talking about the use of cameras and microphones and agents.

"If these cases are serious, then they warrant proper policing, not amateur detective work by council officials acting as if they were part of a private detective agency. Profound civil liberties issues are raised here.''

Scottish Justice Secretary reluctantly, hesitantly starts the 'Tesco Law' ball rolling

Oh the pain of it all .. as Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill finally announces he will bring forth legislation to establish a more opened legal services market in Scotland.

Its not all smiles & roses though, as campaigners point to the reluctance and dithering of Mr MacAskill, who himself has expressed varying views on the 'Tesco Law' issue.

Peter Cherbi on his blod “A Diary of Injustice in Scotland” reports on the story in the following manner : MacAskill struggles to hold back 'Tesco Law' as Law Society dithers on access to justice reforms

Hardly a vote of confidence in the Justice Secretary’s wavering intentions ?

More consistency and less dithering might win the day ?

The Herald reports :

MacAskill paves the way in parliament for ‘Tesco law’

JULIA HORTON

A shakeup of the legal system which could lead to supermarkets and banks offering legal services moved forward yesterday with the start of a debate in the Scottish Parliament.

Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill said that legislation, dubbed Tesco Law, will be introduced in parliament to establish alternative business structures in the legal profession as soon as possible.

The move follows pressure from the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) amid concerns that restrictions on working practices, including barring partnerships with non-legal firms, did not benefit customers.

Scottish lawyers last month backed the changes which have long been called for by the Scottish Consumer Council.

There have been worries about regulation of legal services however, with politicians raising fears during an earlier discussion last year.

Speaking in parliament yesterday Mr MacAskill told MSPs: "I am fully aware that members expressed concerns during the November debate that effective regulation was key to safeguarding consumers and the profession alike.

"This is not about Tesco law', as some have defined it. It is about allowing the profession to grow and compete, while maintaining quality of service to the public and the core values of the profession."

Both the Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates have consulted their members and produced policy papers outlining their vision for the future.

Mr MacAskill stressed that there was still work required to "iron out the detail" of many of the issues to devise solutions for the Scottish market place. "Although there are differences of approach between the law society and the faculty, I am delighted that we have taken the first steps towards reform," he added.

He said that Scottish firms will continue to serve local communities, but he added: "Some firms can compete internationally and, I think, globally. The success of our accounting and financial services sector demonstrates this is possible. There is no reason why law cannot do likewise."

The OFT called for a review following a so-called super-complaint by consumer group Which? that the current set-up hinders market innovation.

At present, lawyers cannot go into partnership with non-lawyers or be employed by non-legal firms to give advice direct to the public. The changes could lead to external ownership or capital for law firms, and partnerships between solicitors and non solicitors.

Welcoming the move, Sarah O'Neill, legal officer of the Scottish Consumer Council, said: "We have been arguing for this for a long time. We think it is in the interests of the consumer in terms of increasing choice and reducing prices."

Richard Henderson, president of the Law Society of Scotland, was more cautious. He said: "It's a very complex issue and there has been a great deal of thought and discussion surrounding alternative business structures. It's clear from the profession's response that there is appetite for change."

Similar legislation is being introduced in England and Wales.

Holyrood MSPs give themselves another rise in expenses

It's a grand life being an MSP, especially when you can give yourself a few extra grand from the taxpayers pocket !

One thing Scots MSPs have specialised in doing since the Scottish Parliament came back into being has been to vote themselves constant increases in their expenses claims ...

The Scotsman reports :

MSPs award themselves rise in allowances ahead of vote

By IAN SWANSON

MSPs have quietly awarded themselves an increase in expenses, even before a controversial new scheme is debated, it emerged today.

A report by an independent panel earlier this year proposed an overhaul of allowances, including a plan to give constituency MSPs £62,000 a year for staff costs while their regional list colleagues would receive £45,000 because of a supposedly lighter workload.

The Scottish Parliament will vote on the panel's recommendations tomorrow. It is expected to agree to give all MSPs the same level of staff allowance.

But because the panel's report was published in March, before the start of the new financial year, the cross-party Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body has taken the opportunity to increase all the amounts by inflation.

The proposal to be put to the parliament tomorrow now includes staff allowances of £64,300 for constituency MSPs and £46,700 for list members.

The amendment likely to be passed by MSPs to equalise the allowance will also be based on an "uprated" figure. That would give all MSPs a staff allowance of around £56,600.

A senior Labour MSP said: "This is a back-door increase. Everyone has been talking about the figures set out in the report and then suddenly we find they have been uprated."

The proposed levels of other allowances have also been increased. The maximum annual amount that can be claimed for overnight accommodation in Edinburgh has gone up from £11,400 to £11,900. The annual limit on office costs has risen from £15,000 to £15,600, and the maximum claim allowed for surgery advertising costs has increased from £1500 a year to £1560 a year.

The move to ensure all MSPs receive the same staff allowance is expected to be backed by the SNP, the Tories, the Greens and independent Lothians MSP Margo MacDonald – which should be enough to ensure it wins.

The Liberal Democrats are likely to have a free vote, leaving only Labour backing the differential proposed by the panel, chaired by Dundee University principal Sir Alan Langlands.

Labour chief whip Jackie Baillie said the party preferred to support the recommendations of an independent review rather than a "backroom fix" drawn up by politicians.

She hinted that Labour was also considering trying to block the uprating of the allowances.

She said: "Our position has always been Langlands as it is. We never anticipated that Langlands would be uprated."

But one parliament source defended the uprating as only following the panel's recommendations. He said: "The Langlands report was received before April 1, but he concluded the rates should be uprated every year."

Lord Advocate Angiolini opposes Westminster plan over 42 day terror detention

It seems the Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini is going against her former Labour masters by coming out dead against the proposals to detain terror suspects for 42 days.

Interesting indeed ...

The Herald reports :

Angiolini opposes Brown on terror arrests

Exclusive by MICHAEL SETTLE

Gordon Brown today suffers another heavy blow in his bid to secure a face-saving victory on extending pre-charge detention to 42 days with Elish Angiolini, the Lord Advocate of Scotland, coming out firmly against the proposal.

On the eve of the crunch vote on the UK Government's flagship Counter Terrorism Bill, which could have serious ramifications for the Prime Minister's political future, Scotland's chief legal officer, who is in charge of all prosecutions north of the border, has told The Herald that extending the period in which a terror suspect can be held without charge from the current 28 days to 42 is unnecessary.

Her opposition raises the prospect of a potential cross-border rift should the UK Government seek to extend the detention period involving a Scottish case.

Under the bill, a bid for such an extension has to be underpinned by a report from a chief constable and supported by the Lord Advocate; in England, it has to be supported by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), currently Sir Ken Macdonald.

Already, Sir Ken has come out strongly against the 42-day proposal, insisting the current limit is "effective". Asked again last week following publication of the UK Government's concessions, the DPP reiterated his opposition to an extension, saying: "If you think something isn't needed, the means of delivering it are probably rather irrelevant."

Last night, the Lord Advocate supported her legal colleague, telling The Herald: "While there has been a limited number of cases in Scotland which were investigated in terms of the Terrorism Act 2000, I am not aware of any case where an extension of the period beyond 28 days would have been required.

"I, therefore, share the view of the DPP Sir Ken Macdonald and the former Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, that the requirement for an extension to the current 28 day is not supported by prosecution experience to date."

Last night, Scottish politicians opposed to the UK Government's position emphasised the significance of Ms Angiolini's position.

Alistair Carmichael, the Liberal Democrat MP for Orkney and Shetland, said: "There is no precedent for Scotland's chief legal officer opposing government legislation of this sort.

"It confirms the already remarkable position of the DPP in England and Wales.

"These are the people whose job it is to get convictions in terrorism cases and they do not see the need for 42 days. The government's position seems weaker than ever."

Angus Robertson, the SNP leader at Westminster, said: "This is an extremely significant opinion that all Scottish MPs should take very seriously. Now that the senior legal officers in Scotland and England take the same view - sceptical of the UK Government's plans - we should be listening very carefully to their voices."

Ms Angiolini, appointed in October 2006 under the previous Labour administration at Holyrood, is regarded as independent-minded and recently appeared at odds with her London colleagues.

In the Lockerbie case, she was prepared to reveal a document provided by an unnamed foreign power, which could potentially clear Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi of the terrorist outrage.

However, Lord Davidson, the Advocate General who is Westminster's legal representative on Scottish matters, urged, at the behest of David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, that a public immunity certificate be issued so the document was not made public on the grounds of national security.

In general, the UK Government, backed by the Metropolitan Police, believes that in the current climate where terror plots can involve people with multiple identities, operating across many countries and involving thousands of computer files, having the ability to extend pre-charge detention to 42 days is a good insurance policy.

Last night Steve House, Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police, told The Herald that the 42-day extension was needed in an ever-more sophisticated era of crime.

"I agree with it. Listen to the voice of the real experts and experience like Peter Clarke, the ex-Deputy Assistant Commissioner at the Met. There may be a situation where we need it and we are not far away with increasing sophistication and the use of computers. Already with 28 days we have been close to the wire. We can't afford to wait until something happens."

Lawyers have a bad name ? really ?

Oh dear .. We can't speculate much on this one .. maybe its just the Law Society of Scotland and the way they have done things over the past couple of decades ?

For an in depth study of this, go to "A Diary of Injustice in Scotland" and read Peter Cherbi's account of why lawyers aren't exactly the bees knees these days ! : Law Society of Scotland's mismanagement of the legal profession has destroyed public confidence in lawyers

The Scotsman reports :

Why do lawyers get such a bad name?

Niall McCluskey feels that the hatred of legal professionals is, on the whole, ill-conceived, as the vast majority are honest and necessary

BLANCHE Knott wrote: "There are three reasons why lawyers are replacing rats as laboratory research animals: One is that they are plentiful, another is that lab assistants don't get so attached to them, and the third is that they will do things that you just can't get rats to do."

It is difficult to conceive of how she could have been more disparaging of the legal profession.

Many people have tried. Consider this quote from writer and comedian Alan Whitney Brown: "A group of white South Africans recently killed a black lawyer because he was black. That was wrong. They should have killed him because he was a lawyer."

These kinds of jokes abound, and are symptomatic of the disapproval society exhibits towards the humble lawyer.

That lawyers are so hated is strange, because they play such a vital role in our society. There is even a proverb that backs this up: "He who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client."

Lawyers assist the public in every conceivable way. In his novel Spring Snow Japanese author Yukio Mishima describes the law as: "A net with mesh so fine as to catch the most trivial incidents of daily life, yet its vast extension in time and space encompass even the eternal movements of the sun and stars." Law is essential and law is everywhere.

Lawyers are also perceived to have the power to improve their client's situation. This is summed up by comic Steven Wright who said: "I busted a mirror and got seven years bad luck, but my lawyer thinks he can get me five." So why does the profession receive such antagonism?

Firstly, lawyers become involved in people's lives at times of distress and are a significant and unwelcome expense.

Actress Claire Trevor once said: "What a holler would ensue if people had to pay the minister as much to marry them as they have to pay a lawyer to get them a divorce." This conveniently overlooks the fact that getting married is generally a terrific expense as well as being a very stressful experience.

In my view it is the association of the lawyer with the pain of divorce and not the expense that is the real issue.

Secondly, lawyers are perceived as parasitic and unnecessarily litigious. Scholar Robert Burton commented that lawyers were "so litigious and busy here on earth, that I think they will plead their clients' causes hereafter, some of them in hell".

There is also a German proverb that says: "When two dogs fight for a bone, and the third runs off with it, there's a lawyer among the dogs."

These are misconceived views. The majority of civil law cases settle, and in securing deals, lawyers are very conscientious about reducing client expense.

Thirdly, lawyers are perceived as dishonest. Screen actor Patrick Murray sneered: "A lawyer will do anything to win his case. Sometimes he will even tell the truth." American entertainer Will Rogers expanded on this theme: "I don't think you can make a lawyer honest by an act of legislature. You've got to work on his conscience. And his lack of conscience is what makes him a lawyer."

These are misleading observations. Because integrity is everything to a lawyer, as soon as a one is considered to be dishonest by colleagues or the court their career is in a downward spiral. I have met many persons of principle in the law who give their all for clients in every case they do. The lawyer's case is not helped by the legal system itself being perceived as a barrier to justice. Oliver Wendell Holmes is alleged to have said: "This is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice."

A writer, Alice Koller, went further: "It takes a long time to learn that a courtroom is the last place in the world for learning the truth."

These are depressing observations, because if a courtroom is not, at least, an attempt to find the truth, we may as well all pack up and go home.

That said, any lawyer with experience will have, no doubt, despaired at cases where matters of form have triumphed over substantive issues. Furthermore, lawyers are perceived to add to these barriers by muddying the waters. Henry David Thoreau certainly believed this: "The lawyer's truth is not truth, but consistency or a consistent expediency. "

Finally, the law is perceived as remote and incomprehensible. Will Rogers summed this up by saying: "The minute you read something that you can't understand, you can be almost sure that it was drawn up by a lawyer."

It is an axiom that ignorance of the law is no excuse, but how can that be justified in a legal landscape that spans European law, vast legislation, countless (usually obscure) statutory instruments and increasingly lengthy and complex case law. Most lawyers are ignorant of areas of law other than the one or two fields in which they specialise.

The question that arises is: how do lawyers regain the respect of the public? There are no easy answers. Much of the prejudice against lawyers is irrational and unjustified.

Lawyers are necessary when people are in crisis. One message that lawyers need to get across is that they are vocationally motivated to assist people in their hour of need. The profession also needs to educate the public about its high ethical standards, and ensure that the legal system itself is not perceived as unhelpful.

The law also needs to be accessible. Take, for example, employment tribunals. Individuals are often required to represent themselves against highly specialised lawyers. How can that be right when it is acknowledged that employment law is a fast-moving and complex area?

Despite all of the abuse, law is a great career. Like politicians and journalists, lawyers have learned to harden their skins against a barrage of insults. Ideally, lawyers would be better understood and appreciated. But that's not what legal practice is about. The lawyer's job is to take the brickbats for clients and to adhere to their duties to the court. The lawyer's prerogative is not to worry about the admiration of the public.

• Niall McCluskey is an advocate

Failure of MacAskill's 'Bring your litigation to Scotland' campaign results in soaring costs of access to civil justice

Well well well .. we told you so !

It seems that Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill's campaign to get companies and individuals to bring their legal business or litigation to Scotland has failed so much, the only way to bring in more money is to ramp up the fees for accessing civil courts instead !.

Nothing like pricing ordinary folks out of access to justice Mr MacAskill .. another failure ? let's hope the First Minister steps in with some ideas of his own ...

The Scotsman reports :

Cost of going to civil court is set to soar

Cost of going to civil court is set to soar

By Michael Howie

THE price of justice in Scotland's courts is set to soar under controversial government plans.

The Scottish Courts Service has announced that fees for accessing civil courts will increase by as much as 100 per cent.

Civil servants want to end subsidies for the use of courts by thousands of people and firms who every year turn to the law to resolve disputes.

Consumer groups and lawyers say the fee increases are unfair and will disproportionately hit the most vulnerable people in society, such as women who require protection from violent partners.

Scotland's civil courts cost about £30 million a year to run, approximately half of which is paid for by fees and the remainder from the public purse.

The Scottish Government wants to end the subsidy for the vast majority of people who use the civil courts to settle grievances, including personal injury claims, child custody battles and divorce.

The changes, which will have to be approved by MSPs, will increase sheriff court costs by 31 per cent and Court of Session costs by 49 per cent.

Only people who receive civil legal aid – those on benefits and very low incomes – will be exempt from the charges.

The fees are used to pay for the administration of courts, including providing sheriffs and judges.

But the increased charges have been met with a wave of criticism, amid accusations that the government is shirking its responsibility to provide a courts system to settle disputes.

Richard Keen, QC, dean of the Faculty of Advocates, said making criminals pay for the cost of running Scotland's courts would be a fairer system. He said: "We don't expect people to have to pay for their own operation. And we don't expect them to pay the cost of sitting exams. That's because we recognise that the wider society benefits from having a funded national health service and education system.

"One can apply the same argument to accessing the courts. This is going to hit hardest some of the most vulnerable in society, such as people who suffer family breakdowns and women who need protection from violent partners."

Elizabeth Welsh, the vice-president of the Family Law Association, said the move would make it even harder for vulnerable people to get justice.

"Increasingly, people trying to access courts are unavoidable cases like protection orders for domestic abuse victims, or care arrangements for children.

"With civil legal aid being so hard to access, these court fee increases are just another barrier to accessing justice. People are already struggling to be able to afford to go to court."

She added: "There is a principle at stake here. Saying the court users should pay for the costs of running the courts fails to recognise that access to justice is a broader social issue.

"It's in the interest of everyone in society that people who, for instance, suffer domestic abuse, are not barred from going to court because of prohibitively high fees."

Eleanor Emberson, chief executive of the Scottish Courts Service, said: "We are committed to ensuring that Scotland has a cost-efficient civil justice system and we are working on changes to our procedures that make better use of technology and that will give better service to our users. Where we are able to reduce our costs, we will, and those using court services will benefit."

FACT BOX

THE cost of a "proof" hearing in court to settle a personal injury claim is currently £230. Under the proposals, that will increase to £500.

Applying for a "simplified" divorce will rise from £70 to £90.

At the moment, it costs £57 to issue a writ in the sheriff court. The courts service wants to raise that to £75.

Small claims actions up to the value of £50 will jump from £8 to £15, although the same charge will also now apply to claims between £50 and £200, which currently attract a £44 charge. Claims for sums between £200 and £3,000 will rise in cost from £44 to £65.

The cost of a petition to appoint an executor will rise from £12 to £15.