| Return to opening page |
. |
|
A closed shopAgain I have taken two articles from the Injustice Scotland Web Site. As you will note elsewhere in this website, patents and the right of audience before our courts are both issues dear to my heart. However, there is a much more important worry, namely our individual liberty is constantly under attack by those agencies we once thought our nation had created to defend our freedom. The Scottish Executive certainly knows how to form "working groups" on issues - particularly those 'working groups' which deal with issues relating to the professions - such as medical, financial, and particularly, Law. Read on for an interesting article showing in one case, the make-up of a 'working group' formed by the Scottish Executive to look at research into legal markets - a group which is made up of the infamous - Douglas Mill, Michael Clancy, etc .... and in no way represents any view which could be considered impartial or in the public interest ...... looks like its business as usual at the Scottish Executive and the Law Society - to keep the legal profession safe and its members well supported in their efforts to fleece their clients of funds. Patent
attorneys to challenge Scottish Executive on court ban
PAUL ROGERSON ‘The Herald’ November 22 2004 THE industry body representing patent attorneys is renewing efforts to persuade the Scottish Executive to sweep away the ban on people other than solicitors and advocates being paid to represent clients in Scottish courts. David Moreland, a patent and trademark attorney at Marks & Clerk in Glasgow, is preparing a submission on the behalf of the Chartered Institute of Patent Agents demanding that attorneys be granted the same rights of audience they already enjoy south of the border. The institute also wants the executive to introduce a Scottish equivalent of the Patents County Court system, which has no equivalent in Scotland. CIPA will make its submission to the executive's working group for research into legal services markets this week. However, the extent to which its demands will be well received is open to question. The working group, convened to consider enhancing competition in the sector, has itself come under scrutiny amid concern that it is top heavy with vested interests. The group has about 20 members, including civil servants and academics, but consumers are directly and independently represented by just three – representatives of the Scottish Consumer Council and Citizens Advice Scotland, and Grahame Horgan of the Office of Fair Trading. CIPA was rebuffed when it asked to join and even the OFT's Horgan is a former English barrister. The Law Society of Scotland alone has at least two direct and one indirect representatives – including chief executive Douglas Mill and lobbyist Michael Clancy, who is the society's director of parliamentary liaison. Professor Alan Paterson, director of the Centre for Legal Studies at Strathclyde University, sits on the society's ruling council. Other practising solicitors in the working group include Michael Walker, chairman of Maclay Murray & Spens, and Neil Ross of Grigor & Young in Elgin. The Faculty of Advocates, meanwhile, is represented by vice-dean Roy Martin QC, while James Wolffe QC is also a member. John Swinney MSP, former SNP leader, has raised the issue of the group's membership in the Scottish Parliament, asking if the executive believes it is sufficiently representative of "consumer interest" and "lay opinion". Hugh Henry, deputy justice minister, replied in a written answer last Tuesday: "Yes. Membership includes representatives from the Scottish Consumer Council, Citizens Advice Scotland, the Office of Fair Trading, and the legal professional bodies, as well as academic researchers and representatives of the Scottish Executive. "Membership of the group is consistent with its remit, which requires specialised expertise to cover the consumer, economic, socio-legal and legal services market issues under consideration." The Scottish Consumers Council remains concerned. A spokesman told The Herald last Friday: "We believe that the group itself should consider the balance of representation. And if there are any groups who believe they should be represented, or issues people feel should be raised, then that is something which should be brought to the attention of the executive." Both the OFT and the council have backed amendment of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990. Certain sections of the act, which were never commenced, would allow interested parties to apply for rights of audience in a Scottish courtroom. Such a concession already exists in England and Wales in relation to members of both CIPA and the Institute of Legal Executives. The justice department agreed to review the ban amid intense lobbying by the fledgling Association of Commercial Attorneys, a pressure group comprising individuals with law degrees and fellows of the Chartered Institute of Arbiters. One of the association's members, Bill Alexander, petitioned the Scottish parliament in January 2003 demanding that the lawyers' "closed shop" be dumped. CIPA's David Moreland is not particularly optimistic. "The best result is that we get what we have asked for from the point of view of the Scottish market. Why should Scotland have any less than England? The worst-case scenario is that at least this puts us on the executive's radar." Some interested parties are surprised that Linda Costelloe Baker – the Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman and last "port of call" for disaffected consumers of legal services – is not a member of the working group. She told The Herald: "I am comfortable with that, because I see some merit in my position being separate from such bodies. I am, however, available for comment, though I have not yet been asked. They are doing some research on rights of audience, and I would certainly have some views. They relate to the fact that a number of complainants with whom I come into contact can't get a solicitor to act for them." The Ombudsman will shortly issue only her second public notice rebuking the Law Society over the way it has handled a complaint. She employed the sanction for the first time in May this year, publishing a statement in three newspapers which amounted to an unprecedented public dressing down for the regulator, whose handling of complaints against member solicitors remains controversial. Costelloe Baker would give no details, except to say she has become concerned at the increasing frequency with which the society is refusing to order payment of the full amount of compensation which she has recommended following her investigations. |
||
| top |
||