The Law Society of Scotland is the professional governing body for Scottish solicitors, based in Drumsheugh Gardens, Edinburgh. The legislative responsibilities of the Society are set out in the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980, specifying the Society's duty to promote both the interests of the Solicitors' profession in Scotland and also protect the interests of the public in relation to the profession. This system of legal self-regulation means that when a misconduct complaint is levelled against a Scottish lawyer, it is one of his fellows who investigates. SACL contend that such a system is open to abuse, as the legal profession is a village where the majority of practitioners are closely connected in one way or another. But the tentacles of the Law Society reach much further than just the perversion of professional justice. They extend to bodies such as the Scottish Solicitors Guarantee Fund which purports to compensate citizens who suffer pecuniary loss as a result of a solicitor's dishonesty. The Law Society is also staffed by some of the most crooked lawyers in Scotland - who blatantly ignore clearly-defined legal principles to protect fellow lawyers from the consequences of serious professional misconduct. The Law Society also wields massive influence over both parliaments, the media and does everything in its power to make Scots Law unduly complex - hence why there are thousands more lawyers today than there were 30 years ago. SACL feel that no country and people can function properly, let alone realise its potential, unless it has an ethical Legal Justice System at its heart. A complete end to legal self-regulation would be a great starting point...
Failure Stats - Eyewitnesses - Documentary Evidence
Law Society Investigation Failure Statistics: Every year, the Law Society's top legal brains ignore Scots Law and professional codes of conduct when investigating Law Society members' who are accused of wrongdoing. For example, 2005 saw 369 complaints to the Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman about the way the Law Society handled a complaint against a solicitor. The Ombudsman found that the Law Society failed to properly investigate a staggering 65% of these 369 complaints! CLICK HERE for a shocking, statistical insight into the 'law-breaking' Law Society failing in its legal duty to protect the public interest.
Eyewitness: CLICK HERE to read some of the powerful eyewitness statements to a 2001 parliamentary inquiry into legal self-regulation.
Documentary: The infamous leaked Law Society Internal Memorandum is described by John Swinney MSP as proof of "undoubted collusion" between the Law Society and the brokers responsible for running the solicitors Master Insurance Policy. CLICK HERE to view a video of John Swinney MSP accusing the Law Society of Scotland of dabbling in claims. CLICK HERE to read the actual memo referred to by Mr Swinney in the video.
Scandals - Guarantee Fund - Case Studies
Law Society Scandals: - The John Forster Scandal - John Kennedy Forster was a part-time Sheriff and partner in a Stranraer law firm. In 2004, Forster was jailed for 6-years for stealing in excess of £660,000 from trusting clients. The clients who were robbed accused the Law Society of protecting Forster from the consequences of his criminal actions, as did the Galloway Gazette newspaper. Click Here for the full story..... The Attempted Murder of the Law Society of Scotland's Chief Accountant, Leslie Cumming, is a touchy subject for the Society. Despite the recovery of DNA from the crime scene, a detailed physical description of the attacker and, by virtue of the fact that the Law Society knew of possible motives for the attack, the criminal investigation proved fruitless and was conveniently scaled down. Click Here for more...The Ken Pritchard Scandal - Charles Kennedy, Sir David Steel, Ken Livingstone & Malcolm Chisholm were just some of the high-profile politicians who signed a parliamentary motion condemning the operation of the Law Society's Master Insurance policy. Click Here for more.....The Andrew Drummond Scandal - Solicitor Andrew Drummond robbed 100-year-old Violet Cuthbert as she lay on her deathbed. He was allowed to do this because the Law Society failed in its statutory duty to protect the public. The Law Society knew Drummond was a crook (he had criminal convictions for illegal share-dealing and was subject of a whole host of other prima facia serious misconduct charges) - yet failed to act. Click Here for more...
The Scottish Solicitors Guarantee Fund: - purports to compensate victims who suffer pecuniary loss as a result of a solicitor's dishonesty. The shocking truth is that this Law Society administered slush fund does nothing of the sort. Click Here for more
In John Billig v The Council of the Law Society, the Dean of The Faculty of Advocates submitted on behalf of Mr Billig: 'The effect of the Council's Decision was that "you cannot trust a Scottish solicitor". This petition to the Court of Session followed a refusal by the Council of the Law Society (in its capacity as administrator of the Guarantee Fund) to compensate Mr Billig - despite accepting that he had been the victim of a Scottish solicitor's dishonesty; that he had suffered pecuniary loss; that it was a claim of last resort and that he had jumped through every hoop expected - bar one. According to the Council, Mr Billig should not have taken the word of crooked Scottish solicitor, Michael Mullen, who was ultimately struck off. You may laugh when reading this, in the mistaken belief that we have somehow misread the situation. Well, have a read at the Court of Session Judgment and imagine if Mr Billig is laughing, having been robbed twice now by Scotland’s legal mafia. Firstly he lost £150,000 + several years interest following his acceptance of an Undertaking from crooked lawyer Mullen. Mr Billig has now been left with a truly astronomical legal bill following his attempt to overturn the decision of the Guarantee Fund’s refusal to compensate him. He employed London solicitors, Scottish solicitors, Edinburgh Agents, Junior Counsel and was even represented at the Court of Session hearing by none other than The Dean of The Faculty of Advocates himself. But it did him no good as the judge merely confirmed what we all know to be true: ‘You should not have taken the word of a Scottish solicitor Mr Billig ’. The kind of legal representation Mr Billig retained doesn’t come cheap – it costs an absolute fortune – especially for a case that's dragged on for over 12 years. Poor Mr Billig is also due to pay the Mob’s legal bill – errr sorry the Law Society’s legal bill. Should £500,000 cover it? Click Here for the Guarantee Fund page.
The Media silence from 
& 
on the Billig Scandal was DEAFENING. The Scotsman's legal correspondent, John Robertson, a journalist who is regarded by some as being an unashamed mouthpiece for the Law Society, showed the scale of his ignorance on this issue when he recently reported that the Guarantee Fund "compensates the victims of dishonest solicitors". Errr, no John, it's not quite as simple as that. Feel free to email us though if you have any questions about the Billig case - or any other issue raised on this page.
Case Studies: - coming shortly....Our first case study details the Law Society's acceptance that "Ignorance of the law was not an excuse" for failing to investigate allegations of collusion levelled against, Biggart Baillie, a former Law Society President's firm.
Crooks - Liars - Merchants of Spin
Crooks & Liars who work for the Law Society of Scotland: Philip 'Coochie' Yelland, Douglas 'I'm a 130K-a-year hooker' Mill, Ian 'not so' Smart, Joe 'Spinmeister' Platt, David 'let me steal all your money' Lyons, James 'my client is clearly as guilty as my conscience Your Honour' Keegan, Peter 'I didn't get your Section 42C Notice Coochie'' Liddell - and others. A new page for each crook is coming soon and the revelations will be flooding out...In the meantime, Click Here to read the pack of lies Douglas Mill told parliament.
Spin Doctors: Joe Platt's Response to The Forster Scandal is a classic example of Law Society Spin. Click Here for more....
FIVE HUNDRED SOLICITORS wrote to the Scottish Parliament in response to its investigation into legal self-regulation. Approximately HALF of these 500+ lawyers who wrote in support of self regulation did not write in their own words! Unbelievable - but true. Instead they used parliamentary submission templates provided by The Law Society. Some of the lawyers who used templates felt so uncomfortable about doing so they changed the odd word here and there in a sad attempt to make their submission appear original.
Plagiarism: a form of cheating and is seen as academic dishonesty. It is a matter of deceit: fooling a reader into believing that certain written material is original when it is not.
Do you have any examples of this plagiarism?
Yes. Margaret M Neilson is a part-time sheriff and partner in top law firm Balfour Manson. Her submission originates from the same template used by Angela Wipat, another solicitor in her firm. This very template is used by many other plagiarisers. Click Here to open parliament's website in a new window and compare Ms Neilson's submission (No.72) to that of Ms Wipat (73) and to submssions from, say, the following solicitors:
294 Catriona MacLeod
296 Lynne Leatherbarrow
297 Shaun George
298 Nicola Brown
300 Judith Meil
305 George Tait
On reading all of these submissions you will note some differences; but a closer inspection reveals certain paragraphs and sentences that are identical, word for word, comma for comma.
Solicitors who plagiarised?
The menu below is in alphabetical order - forenames first.
So who lied to parliament?
In our view, Douglas Mill unquestionably lied to parliament. He did so in relation to the Infamous Law Society Internal Memo - following difficult questions by John Swinney MSP. He also lied in relation to the percentage of negligence claims which go to court.
Lie No.1
Douglas Mill swore "on his Granny's grave" that the Law Society don't, and never have, dabbled in PI claims - but the Memo exposes Mill's proposal for a "summit meeting" with the Insurance Brokers to "discuss both the complaints and claims aspects" of a Law Society complainer (Stewart MacKenzie).
Douglas Mill: "I quite properly inquired of Marsh, "I seek an assurance that these claims are being progressed quickly"
John Swinney MSP: "The memo...encourages "a summit meeting...to be held to look at "both the complaints and the claims aspects." That rather suggests that the Law Society has been involved."
Mike Lloyd (SACL webmaster): "In evidence, Mr Mill told the committee that he suggested a
summit meeting with the insurers because that was in the best interests of Mr Mackenzie, but the last sentence of the internal memo clearly gives the real reason. Mr Mill wrote:
"There is no doubt that Mr MacKenzie is intelligent and well organised individual who could, unlike some of the other thorns in our flesh, come over very well at a JHAC investigation."
The chief executive of the Law Society proposed a summit meeting to pervert the outcome of a parliamentary inquiry. Mr Mill said in evidence that he proposed the summit meeting to protect Mr Mackenzie's best interests, which was a lie. The committee should investigate that."
So what this boils down to is that Mill not only proposed a summit meeting to discuss "both the complaints and the claims aspects." - shameful enough as that is - but he lied to parliament as to the reason for this summit meeting i.e. that he, Mill, wanted MacKenzie's PI claim "progressed quickly", so as to reduce the likelihood of Mackenzie giving damaging evidence to parliament, following years of legal profession abuse. For Mill to tell the Justice Committee that the summit meeting was for Mackenzie's benefit is shameful and we are somewhat surprised that the few honest lawyers left in the legal profession have not gone over the memo and Mill's evidence to parliament with a fine-toothed comb.
Lie No. 2
Douglas Mill : "I have figures from Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance, our lead insurer, that show that less than 1 per cent of claims against solicitors go to court. Claims tend to go to court only if a relatively novel point of law is being tested or there are unrealistic expectations about the quantum—the amount that the claimant is claiming. Therefore, there is no necessity for a lengthy delay."
Trevor Goddard (Royal Sun Alliance): "Less than 1 per cent of the master policy claims that we deal with go to proof."
Douglas Mill lied about this because he knew all too well that the 1% figure relates to PROOF - not "going to COURT ". He lied in order to mislead the J2C into believing that more claims are settled "out of court" than is actually the case. Click Here for the actual video evidence.
Jan 2008 - A fortnight after the publication of this page, Douglas Mill announces his intention to resign as Chief Executive. Coincidence?
Page References:
Douglas Mill's Evidence to Parliament Re: less than 1 percent go to court
Trevor Goddard 's Evidence to Parliament Re: less than 1 percent go to proof
Our evidence to Parliament Re: the 1 percent issue and the memo
Marsh Insurance Fraud BBC report on America's biggest fraud
External Web Sources:
Law Society of Scotland Law Society of Scotland Homepage - the Law Society's online publication
Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman SLSO Homepage
