Complaints against lawyers and legal firms in Scotland: consultation

Redacted textmy Unite the Union Solicitor while temporarily abandoning my £160,000 Personal Injury case at the Court of Session did not oppose the Defence Solicitors amendment that my ex-employer be absolved of all issues in the case, following this the Judge absolved my ex-employer of all issues in the case making the temporary abandonment permanent which also meant the vast majority of the issues in my Employment Tribunal which had been postponed pending the outcome of my Personal Injury case were automatically struck off, the SLCC Investigator into my complaint dealt with this as a service issue only as well as thirteen other complaints against my Solicitor and his Supervising Manager/Firm Partner Redacted text. Cont...

Having stated this the Investigator and the SLCC Determination Committee are clearly 'unfit for purpose' as they both refused to accept the above mentioned as evidence that my Solicitor was not acting in my best interests also illogically dismissing twelve other complaints. Both the Investigators Manager and the CEO of the SLCC confirmed that once the Investigator had made their final report and the Determination Committee had agreed with the investigators findings ('It's Scottish Ministers who hire the Determination Committee anyway' the CEO of the SLCC) they could not be changed and I would have to be appeal in the Court of Session so hiding behind the fact only the wealthy could afford to appeal to the Court of Session and my Union refused to fund this.

As my comments specify in my response to question one and Ester Robertson in her 2018 report the SLCC is not 'fit for purpose' any process put in place to streamline or reduce time in investigations will only exacerbate already major issues as will using terminology such as "presumption" and "expected" as they are just leaving the process open to furtherRedacted textof power.

I believe this process would again be Redacted text and taken advantage of after previous negative illogical dealings with the Law Society and the SLCC, the SLCC complied a complete illogical charade of a report dismissing thirteen out of fourteen 'complaints' and informed me I could appeal to the SLCC's Determination Committee but "they agree with Investigators 95% of the time, insinuating I would be wasting my time, the situation is that bad. I did appeal the the SLCC's Determination Committee with a detailed response to the Investigators charade of a report and yes the investigator was right the Determination Committee agreed with all her illogical thirteen decisions as well as her fourteenth.

In the past I was compiling a complaint to the Law Society regarding a child custody case I was involved in and my brother who was Criminal Investigation Detective with the Lothians and Borders police at the time stated I would be wasting my time his Redacted text was that all agencies like the Law Society, Ombudsmen etc have been set up to deflect responsibility. I tend to confirm things with personal experience and yes I was given the run around by the Law Society and every other agency of appeal seeking justice in various situations throughout the years.

If the system worked as it should there would not be that many complaints but it does not, quoting Robin McAlpine of Common Weal "Nothing is more important than integrity in public life, that may seem anachronistic to some (given modern political culture) but positive change cannot be built on anything but the firmest of foundations, when corruption or misuse of power creeps into those foundations nothing good can come of them". The only realistic solution would be as Ester Robertson recommends in her 2018 report that the SLCC is replaced with a totally independent organisation. I honestly do not understand where you get statements like "High quality decisions continue to underpin the complaints process".





"There must be reform in governance in Scotland and a root and branch review of the civil service and it's agencies". If the system worked as it should there would not be that many complaints it does not, the only realistic solution would be as Ester Robertson recommended in her 2018 report is that the SLCC is replaced with a totally independent organisation.

Again this would be acceptable if the complaints process worked as it was supposed too, it clearly does not and again it is widespread deemed "not fit for purpose". This proposal would only lead to further bias against "complainers" I believe and further complains being dismissed "inappropriately".

Again the proposal would work if the process worked as it was supposed too but it does not. E.G. as previously stated the Investigator in my case illogically refused to accept my Solicitor not opposing the amendment that ALL my issues against my ex-employer be absolved as evidence he was not working in my best interests and illogically dismissed twelve other complains against my Solicitor and his Manager/Firm Partner in a charade of a report, also deciding Solicitors behaving in this fashion were not deemed to be in the public interest and this was supported by the Determination Committee. I could not afford to appeal to the Court of Session, just like the vast majority of the public, Redacted textSecretary of Unite the Union refused to fund the Court of Session appeal so after my Solicitor and his Supervising Manager sabotaged my £160,000 Personal injury case I was forced to accept their firm Redacted textbe fined £200 for lack of communication the one issue in fourteen the Investigator found in my favour and no doubt this would be recorded in the SLCC stats as a positive outcome. I do not believe in the vast majority of cases this organisation is capable of offering a reasonable settlement.

If again the process worked as it was supposed too, it does not.

As for the modern view of a complaints systems place the emphasis on enabling users to make informed choices as to the providers they trusted. Unite the Union state in their advertising material that 'all the solicitors they hire to represent their Members fight for them and go the extra mile'. Unite instructed my Solicitors to represent me, Redacted textpersonally assured me he was on my side and when I informed Redacted textof the final circumstances as well as refusing to fund my appeal he had the audacity to state he has confidence in all the Solicitors Unite hires to represent its Members and the SLCC.

I cannot help feeling due to my previous statements and the experience of other "complainers" (inappropriate terminology used by the SLCC) professionals etc that the suggestion of the SLCC providing greater transparency and information on complaints will be met with derision due to the SLCC'sRedacted textof power and its blatant Redacted text. I cannot emphasize enough the necessity for this organisation to be replaced by another genuinely independent agency as Ester Robertson has recommended at the earliest date possible.

Clients should be reimbursed all their fee's plus maximum compensation in serious misconduct/poor service cases.

It is with regret I must state that I believe the proposals set out in this consultation, with good intentions, are highly unlikely to be genuinely put into practice due to the endemic Redacted text in the SLCC going back historically to the Law Society which was commonly known to the Redacted textetc no doubt to the high degree of unsatisfied "complainers"and why they have earned the term "Not fit for purpose" and I reiterate my statement the Scottish government should make all efforts to take up the recommendation the SLCC be replaced with a genuine independent organization at the earliest possible date.

I see no facility here to provide evidence though I can provide evidence for my statements and will do on request so there is no reason why my consultation cannot be published.

Your faithfully

Gerry Imrie.