After bringing the Scottish legal profession into widely accepted disrepute & disrespect, the Law Society of Scotland has instituted another of it's famous 'talking shop projects', with a 'consultation' on standards within the profession itself.
Of course, having the likes of a code of conduct where rules can apparently be varied on a case by case basis (resulting in even the most extreme offences committed by solicitors against clients being whitewashed), has never been good for the legal profession's image as many thousands of clients have found out over the years when trying to make a complaint against a 'crooked lawyer'.
Clients who are ruined by crooked lawyers have faced the spectre of making a complaint to even more lawyers who end up making sure those members of the public never get proper access to justice again .. and for what reason as these maligned clients have done nothing wrong other than protest against a lawyer ripping them off either financially or with poor legal service.
It should be a crime for a lawyer to rip off a client .. but it seems to be more of a crime for a client to report or complain against a crooked lawyer. How twisted is that ?
The Law Society of Scotland has made do with such advice as this imaginatively titled piece : "How the Law Society of Scotland can help you".
"Most people consulting a solicitor in Scotland will be fully satisfied with the service they receive. Occasionally, there is a problem and you may wish to register a complaint.
The Law Society of Scotland's Client Relations Office has a legal responsibility to handle complaints against Scottish solicitors. Our aim is to work with you to find the best solution to your complaint. We work to do that in a fair, thorough and impartial way"
If you are having problems with a solicitor and you are the client, you need to raise your concerns with the firm in the first instance. Solicitors' firms have a Client Relations Partner or officer who will listen to your problem and try to resolve it. This is usually the quickest and most effective way of sorting out the problem.
You could contact the firm and ask for the name of the Client Relations Partner or contact the Law Society of Scotland's Client Relations Helpline on: 0845 113 0018 for that information.
Before considering a complaint to the Society, please make sure that you have done everything you can to resolve the matter directly with the firm"
Interesting .. but of course, another do-nothing rule, which has seen solicitors threaten clients families with physical assault in some cases, and even visits from the Police to clients houses on the back of 'anonymous tips' containing later proved false information.
So ... rather than try to resolve the matter with the crooked lawyers themselves, it might be wiser and safer to go to a newspaper and publicise everything before attempting even to make a complaint to the Law Society of Scotland ... or in the future, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission.
Finally, to add insult to injury, from the Law Society's website : "Client relations is a very important aspect of the Society's work. Consumer protection and quality of service are paramount. Most people who use the services of solicitors are satisfied with the service they receive. However, if you are dissatisfied, we view this matter very seriously"
Telling a bunch of crooked lawyers how they should improve regulating crooked lawyers might not do much good – and it hasn't done any good so far, but by participating in the consultation, or publicising your woes with solicitors, it certainly gets more views across than the raft of pre-filled out forms which are apparently being sent in by ... lawyers !
Following is the Scotsman's take on the "Standards Consultation"
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.
As the days count down to the first of October 2008, when the new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission takes over regulation of service complaints from the Law Society of Scotland, new details emerge of the [sadly] lack of any effort on the part of the Scottish Government to appoint wholly independent individuals to oversee and adjudicate complaints against Scotland's 10,500 solicitors.
It appears almost, the Law Society of Scotland, which has succeeded in overpowering both the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007 and the new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, has simply cloned itself into the new Commission.
Of course, the problem comes in such a situation we have here in the formation of an entirely new regulatory body, where there is a lack of political leadership or incentive to do other than what has done before.
Where for instance, there is no political leadership or political intervention in an industry to reform or change its ways .. that industry will do as it pleases as so many industries have done in the past when it came to disrespecting the rights of consumers.
Here we have that same situation, where the legal 'industry' in Scotland seems to be able to do as it pleases, because there is no political leadership or political intervention to ensure that the public interest is kept paramount over that of the industrial interest.
The legal profession's interest in this case, is to keep control of regulation at all costs, to the point of co-opting what was intended to be a new 'independent' complaints commission, now staffed by the very same people, many who have corrupted the regulatory process for many years ensuring clients got nowhere against crooked members of the legal profession.
Sadly in this instance, there appears to be almost no political leadership at all coming from Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, who has simply sat back and allowed the Law Society to put forward its people to staff, run and enforce the new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission .. and absolutely nothing has been said about it at all ..
If you actually sit down and think about it, the Justice Secretary has failed to show leadership, raise comment, or even just raise an eyebrow on umpteen more issues facing Scots Law today, from corrupted disclosure practices of the Crown Office, to the failures of the Lockerbie Case, to the failure of Law & order up and down the country itself ..
Here is the register of Members interests from the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission .. see if you can spot anyone who hasn't had dealings with lawyers or been part of the legal profession's self regulatory set up over the years .. you will be very hard pressed to do so, and it is that difficulty which gives rise to the fact the SLCC is not the independent complaints commission which Scots were promised …!
• Currently Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman.
• Formerly, a part time nurse member of the Mental Welfare Commission (1997-2005).
• Has accepted hospitality from Gillespie MacAndrew.
• Director of Social Work North Ayrshire Council 1999-2000.
• Board Member of Ayrshire Council on Alcohol.
• Ex-President of the Association of Directors of Social Work ( Scotland ).
• Visiting Professor to Glasgow Caledonian University School of Health and Social Care.
• Associate Professor in Policing for Charles Sturt University (Australia).
• Formerly Chair of the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland (ACPOS) Professional Standards Business Area.
• Vice-Chair of ACPOS General Policing Business Area.
•Professor of Law and Director of the Centre for Professional Legal Studies at Strathclyde University.
• Lay member of the Judicial Appointments Board.
• Co-opted member of the Council of the Law Society of Scotland.
Amazingly or not, the work of watering down the intentions of the Legal Profession & Legal Aid Act (2007) goes on.
The latest salvo fired by the legal profession against clients takes the form of rigid conditions imposed by the new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, itself now mostly staffed by employees of the Law Society of Scotland who have transferred over to the new 'independent' regulator .. which has now definitely lost the tag of 'independence' by any measure of the word.
As reporter in last week's article but now confirmed, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission has now categorically stated that it will refuse to handle any complaints regarding any legal work instructed prior to 1st October 2008, the date the new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission begins its work as regulator of 'service' complaints against Scotland's 10,500 solicitors.
This may spell disaster for clients whose complaints are now caught in this tricky period, where it is rumoured, the Law Society are binning complaints against lawyers at an alarming rate before the new Commission takes effect, dishing out infinite measures of 'rough justice' to clients who have fell victim to crooked members of the legal profession.
The SLCC has also decided, after apparently receiving 'counsel's opinion' on complaints handling, that it will refuse to examine historical cases of complaint mishandled by the Law Society of Scotland. A small reminder to readers that 'Counsel' would of course, be a member of the Law Society of Scotland ! – so it's hardly surprising the Law Society would want its old mishandled cases re-examined by the new complaints body.
Being unable to examine cases of the past, may not be such a bad thing though, as the SLCC itself is staffed by many members of the Law Society of Scotland who have performed questionably on complaints against solicitors in the past - and I doubt they would be so willing to reexamine their own work and find against how poorly they had treated clients beforehand while working at the Law Society.
The Law Society of Scotland are of course, very happy about these two policy decisions. It was the Law Society who asked for it, and they have got it. That shouldn't surprise anyone, it was always the goal of the Law Society to ensure the new Commission was 'brought to heal' like an errant puppy, and it has certainly achieved that by populating the new Commission with its staff and lay committee members.
After all, the legal profession is to pay for the new Complaints Commission, so they will definitely want a say in how that money is spent, while ensuring continued control of the regulatory process via former staff from the Law Society who will no doubt continue in the vein they have become accustomed to.
Jane Irvine, the new Chairman of the SLCC confirmed in a statement the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission won't be looking into complaints prior to work instructed before the first of October 2008.
Jane Irvine : "The simple fact is the SLCC's powers to award redress, particularly compensation, would be as limited as those of the Law Society if we re-opened old cases. We wished therefore to avoid re-opening old cases where we could have little effect and instead would probably simply inconvenience parties by taking them through our investigation system. The SLCC will therefore focus on work instructed after 1-10-08"
I have to say, on the whole, I agree with Jane Irvine that the SLCC is not a safe venue to reexamine old cases where the Law Society of Scotland deliberately or incompetently mishandled complaints against solicitors.
We can't have the same people who worked for the Law Society and may have worked on many of these mishandled complaints, re examine their own work now they are based at the new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission. It simply is not on at all. How on earth could they be trusted to come up with an impartial view of their own work or that of their colleagues ? Simply not possible in the real world ... and it would only malign the name of the SLCC further.
There is no doubt that old cases must be reopened - there are many to consider, where the Law Society has let crooked lawyers off the hook but a new body must be created to do that, if only for that task, as I pointed out in my Petition PE1033.
There .. not too difficult is it now - and it doesn't involved rocket science .. only needing the will to clean up the sins of the past and do some good, for maligned clients, the legal profession, the justice system, and the general public interest. Has to be a good idea, surely !
Truth & reconciliation is the way ahead, but putting together the legal profession, maligned clients, politicians who must lead the process or at least encourage it, and consumer organisations is not the easiest of tasks but it is definitely the way to proceed on this difficult and thorny issue, itself which has led to the changes in legislation and the creation of the new complaints commission.
It seems apparent there will have to be an independent Commission created for the purpose of re examining injustice caused by past mishandled cases of complaint against solicitors.
To achieve this, I hope the Scottish Government can see their way to bringing political leadership to this issue, by way of a fully independent Truth & Reconciliation Commission, ensuring a fair hearing for many people who have most certainly been denied such a right by the legal profession in the past - and are now seeing their rights abused again by what was to be a new broom in the legal world, now sadly losing its bristles before it even begins its work.
Hoping to repair the situation somewhat, the Scottish Consumer Council has also been campaigning for historical cases of poorly handled complaints against solicitors to be re examined by the new Commission, and has replied to the SLCC's rules consultation, pointing out inadequacies in the way the SLCC's remit and complaints handling is to be implemented.
In fact, looking at the SLCC's remit, one could be forgiven of thinking it was … written by the Law Society of Scotland ?
Thank you for consulting the Scottish Consumer Council (SCC) on the draft rules of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission. We welcome the opportunity to comment on the consultation draft.
While we understand the need for the rules to be formal and precise, it is important that complainers are able to understand how they operate.
We hope, therefore, that the rules will be supplemented by clear, easily understood guidance for complainers on the Commission's rules and procedures.We understand that the Commission is also to set up a 'gateway team' to advise and assist complainers, and we welcome this.
We are concerned that the Commission does not intend to consider re-opening historic complaints, particularly in relation to complaints about endowments sold by solicitors. We consider these to be a class of complaints which may merit being re-considered, for the reasons which we have previously outlined to the Commission.
Specific comments Rule 3 – making a complaint etc.
We are concerned about the implications of draft rule 3(6), which go beyond the issue of historic cases. As the draft rule stands, where the conduct or service complained about relates to a matter in which the practitioner was instructed by the complainer before 1 October 2008, the Commission will not accept the complaint.
This means that such cases will continue to be dealt with by the relevant professional bodies. This could mean that those bodies will have to continue to deal with such cases for many years after the work was carried out – where, for example, there has been a mistake in a conveying a property or in drafting a will, the problem may only be discovered many years after the event.
We presume that this also means that anyone who has a complaint falling into this category will only be entitled to the level of compensation which the professional body was able to award at the time the work was carried out, rather than the maximum £20,000 which the Commission will be able to award.
While it is understandable that the Commission wishes to start with a clean sheet, it seems unlikely that this situation is what the Scottish parliament intended. It also seems unfair on the professional bodies who could continue to receive such complaints for many years.
We would suggest that an appropriate compromise might be to apply rule 3(7) to cases falling within rule 3(6) (a), which would allow the Commission to deal with genuine long-term cases, without opening the floodgates. This would also mean that the professional bodies would know that there was a clear cut-off point for them beyond which they would not have to deal with service complaints. We would expect this date to be 1 October2009, on the basis that they will only accept complaints for up to one year after 1 October, which we understand is the intention of the Law Society of Scotland.
We are concerned that the terms of these rules – which refer to 'hearings', 'evidence' etc.- suggest an adversarial procedure, although the Commission has made clear it intends to operate in a more inquisitorial fashion.
We would suggest that draft rule 21(2) should provide that a quorum of any committee should include at least one non-lawyer member and one lawyer member.
We would suggest that the Commission should give written reasons for its determinations, decisions etc.
It is not clear whether this is intended to be a paper form or if it can be completed electronically. Presumably the need for a signature means that even if it can be filled in electronically, it will need to be printed off and signed.
Again, we assume that the form will be accompanied by guidance explaining the meaning of terms such as 'instructed', 'practitioner' and 'professional body'.
Question 1 – it may be helpful to make clear that an approximate date will be sufficient, where the complainer is unsure as to the exact date when they instructed the practitioner.
Question 2- it would be helpful to clarify from whom the details might be kept confidential – presumably the practitioner complained about. It could also be made clearer that not all of the possible types of contact details are required - only a name and postal address are needed in terms of the rules. Clearly, however, other forms of contact may be helpful to the Commission and would also be more convenient for the complainer.
Question 3 – is there a need to state here, as in relation to Question 6, that if the complainer refuses to allow the form to be copied to the practitioner, the Commission cannot investigate the complaint?
Question 4 – it is not clear what happens if the person filling in the form is not the client. Presumably if the Commission is to make a determination under draft rule 3(4) as to whether it is appropriate for that person to make the complaint on the client's behalf, it will need further information about the substance of the complaint, as set out in the rest of the form.
It is not clear whether this question is also intended to cover the situation where the complainer wishes to complain about a practitioner's service, but is neither the client nor acting on behalf of the client. This might be someone else who has suffered as a result of the practitioner's alleged poor service/negligence, such as a beneficiary of a will or the client of a solicitor on the other side of a transaction, for example.
Question 9 - we are not convinced that complainers should be asked about why they want a particular resolution. This could be seen to be intrusive and is not necessarily relevant to the complaint. We would suggest that instead, question 8 could be opened up a bit more – to ask the complainer what 'other action' they would like to see, for example.
Finally we would have expected to see a question in the form about whether the complainer has already complained to the practitioner / firm / been through the firm's complaints procedure. While the new process requires people to go through this stage before going to the Commission, not everyone will be aware of this.
Now that the Law Society of Scotland has seen to it the new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission is staffed by many members of staff from the Law Society itself, along with lay members from it's own complaints committee framework, there should be no further need for the open hostility expressed by the outgoing Law Society Chief Executive Douglas Mill, against the new Commission and the very legislation which created the SLCC in the first place.
Well, the Law Society has found a new way to undermine the new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, as I have reported above, by simply assimilating it - in short, taking it over with its own work crew who have caused many of the complaints disasters over the last couple of decades.
The same people who considered and frittered away week after week, month after month, year after year of clients lives making sure their complaints against well known crooked lawyers, got nowhere, will now be working for the new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission.
Can such an individual who has operated for years on the notion of ensuring corrupt colleagues escape regulatory penalty, and all the while, ensuring that clients cannot progress their complaints or financial claims for damages, be working for what is supposed to be a new 'independent' complaints commission designed to give the public confidence in regulation of the legal profession ?
Obviously not, and both the Law Society of Scotland and the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission know it .. it's just a matter of moulding the public perception of the new Commission, and who better to do that, the Law Society of Scotland itself, who now take on the campaign to 'inform the public' on what exactly the new Commission is, what kind of complaints it will handle, and what it will do for the public which the Law Society has never done in the past.
Indeed, the Law Society is also apparently handling advice to the new Commission on what complaints it can and cannot handle .. apparently with the full knowledge of the Justice Department of the Scottish Government.
Surely the Scottish Government can do better for Scotland than this ... or is it the case of the tail wagging the dog when it comes to all things law again ?
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.
The game is on ... as they say, with the announcement yesterday in the Scottish Parliament from Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill that legislation to open up the Scottish legal services market will be brought in 'as soon as possible'.
While the announcement is welcome .. the problem for the general public who require access to legal services is that Mr MacAskill, and the Law Society of Scotland, don't really want the current legal services monopoly opened up in any way at all, so the process of giving ordinary Scots their freedom of choice of legal representatives, rather than forcing everyone to use a 'member of the Law Society of Scotland' is guaranteed to be more like pulling hen's teeth than the smooth process of breaking up the insidious monopoly which Scots legal services most certainly is.
It's time for Injustice to end, but will the SNP end Injustice in Scotland ?
It turned out, the Justice Secretary was only against "Tesco Law" because it would of course dent the huge profits made by his colleagues in the legal profession, who are apparently holding Mr MacAskill 'to a great debt' he openly confessed to in the Scots Parliament.
Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill amazingly admits SNP owe lawyers a great debt ? What debt ?
Not to be outdone by the Justice Secretary, the Law Society of Scotland have pulled every string in the book, twisted every arm it could find, and called in every politician it heard asking questions on access to justice reforms, for a quick round of bullying to prevent too much free thought gaining momentum on the proposals to give everyone in Scotland the right to choose who represents their legal affairs.
The Law Society of Scotland, which itself suffered a recent vote against its own policy to maintain market control of Scots legal services definitely want to keep the multi billion pound Scots justice market for themselves and so came up with a policy strategy I reported on earlier, which can only be described as a policy for prevarication and delay ... hanging the whole idea of accepting an opened legal services market on what is the most prized power in legal circles - self regulation.
Quoting the Herald article : "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."
Sadly, the whole issue has had to be forced on the Scottish Government, who via Mr MacAskill as Justice Secretary, have dragged their feet significantly on the issue of access to justice & freeing up the legal services monopoly.
Perhaps Mr MacAskill, himself a member of the Law Society of Scotland which is openly opposed to market reform, is not the best choice to proceed this issue impartially enough to ensure the public will have full rights of choice, and that the legal services market will have full unrestricted competition, backed up by powerful independent regulation and an 'unrivalled consumer protection policy' which is not managed by the Law Society of Scotland or any well known corrupt insurance cartel.
It is a sad fact that, had the Westminster based Office of Fair Trading not intervened by way of the Which? "supercomplaint", along with campaigns by individuals such as myself, law reform groups, consumer organisations, and even solicitors who are for opening up access to justice .. it seems there would have been no action at all from the Justice Secretary to reform Scotland's antiquated way of allowing it's citizens to conduct their legal business.
Ordinary Scots are surely due the right and freedom to choose who represents their legal affairs, at what cost, at what quality, and at what level of honesty ?
For now, freedom of choice in access to justice is definitely not the case under the system of legal representation controlled by the Law Society of Scotland, but with an opened legal services market, the client's rights should be significantly enhanced, and protections put in place to see that if things go wrong, members of the public don't keep getting ripped off by lawyers and sidelined into oblivion when trying to raise either a complaint or damages claim against poor legal service.
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.
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.
Labels: access to legal services, alternative business structures, Kenny Macaskill, Law Society of Scotland, OFT, Scottish Government, Scottish Parliament, SNP, Which?
What is the world coming to when a lawyer asks why lawyers get such a bad name ?. Does it go something like lawyer lawyer on the wall who is the most crooked of us all ?
Generally however, the reason lawyers get such a bad name, is because the legal profession itself is being run akin to the mafia, where the majority of complaints and scandals involving members of the legal profession are covered up by the Law Society of Scotland, and those who ruin clients generally get away with it.
So, to answer Nial McCluskey's thoughts of why solicitors are getting a bad name, he should look no further than Drumsheugh Gardens itself, the current base of the Law Society of Scotland.
Perhaps Mr McCluskey should also look at the profession's antagonistic attitude towards almost anyone, not just clients, or complaining clients, but solicitors too, who might want to dissent from Law Society policy from time to time .. even suggest reforms which might repair relations with the public & clients, rather than stick to the Douglas Mill mantra of 'we will fight them in [and out of] their homes' approach .. a public confidence vote loser if ever there was one.
Law Society Chief Executive Douglas Mill – now there was a man who knew exactly how to ruin clients claims & complaints against crooked lawyers !
If the legal profession were to take a different approach to clients & the public at large ... less of the 'let's rip them off' philosophy, and more of the 'look, this is what we can do for you, in such a space of time, at such a cost or risk' attitude .. then I'm sure the road to getting the public to view lawyers higher up the life chain than worms would be started.
So, it seems ideas to clean up the legal profession's image, and its many sins, cannot come solely from either politicians or the legal profession itself .. as they are doomed to certain failure.
Cleaning up the sins of the past .. now there is an honourable task for the legal profession to perform, but from my earlier article on the subject, you can see there are still a few within the Law Society who are dead against such moves, even to the point of engaging in political bullying & manipulation to stop the ideas dead.
If you really want to remove the misconceptions or ill conceived view of a poorly regulated, deeply corrupt legal profession .. tackle the root causes of those fairly well founded observations by clients .. and the legal profession will find that clearing up the damage it has done, is a certain vote winner with all concerned.
Why do lawyers get such a bad name?
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.
Why is it so difficult to sue a lawyer in Scotland many people ask ?
Well it is difficult to sue a lawyer because all lawyers are insured by the same insurance cartel – Marsh UK.
So if you can actually get a lawyer to take on your case against a lawyer who has say ... lost you a court case you had a good chance of winning .. or failed to give you good legal service which led to a substantial financial loss, even perhaps, the loss of your home ... the lawyer you hire to sue the lawyer who caused you the loss, will of course be insured by the same insurance cartel as the crooked lawyer.
Now, the fact that all lawyers are insured by the same insurance cartel might be argued by some as having nothing to do with the difficulty of getting a lawyer to sue a lawyer ... but we of course know different from the reality of things.
Actually, just say, your lawyer gives you poor legal service which leads to a substantial financial loss, and you hire another lawyer to sue them for negligence, which would entail obtaining the services of an Advocate, obtaining QC's opinion there was negligence present in your former legal agent's poor service to you, and eventually making it to the Court of Session .. you will find that your new lawyer, your Advocate, and the crooked lawyer who caused you the loss in the first place, will all benefit financially if your damages claim fails, or suffers a severe reduction in the settlement, if one is even agreed to.
In most cases involving client legal action against 'crooked' or negligent lawyers, your own legal agents and the lawyer who was negligent in handling your legal affairs, all receive financial bonuses if your claim for damages is either reduced, or thrown out.
On top of that, even your legal agents have a vested interest in your claim either being reduced or failing completely, because your success will increase their own annual payments into the insurance cartel which will be forced to pay out to you if you succeed. Good business, isn't it .. but not for you ... and of course, you are told nothing about this.
Whether you succeed or fail in your court action against a lawyer, you will then find your access to legal services blocked by the Law Society of Scotland, as you are put on a 'legal services blacklist' maintained by the legal profession naming people who have either complained against, or have taken legal action against lawyers.
Indeed, the Law Society of Scotland itself, has intervened many times directly in legal action against its own members, ensuring such cases fail at every turn. That interference from the profession's governing body has come from it's highest levels in many cases, where Chief Executives, past & present, have intervened to save crooked lawyers and the Law Society's insurance policy otherwise known as the Master Insurance Policy, from payout's to ruined clients.
Insidious isn't it ... the legal profession in Scotland have been doing this for years - making sure that anyone who tries to sue a lawyer gets nowhere ... and anyone who dares complain against a lawyer gets no access to justice after that .. and politicians, from all parties who have been aware of this for years, have sat back and generally done nothing.
The problem is, as you can see in all of this, there is an insurance cartel controlling the situation, backed up by the legal profession's governing body itself - who claim not to intervene in cases of complaint or financial claims against solicitors .. but they do, and one such incident was famously exposed by our very own Cabinet Secretary for Finance, John Swinney, where the outgoing Law Society Chief Executive Douglas Mill just sat before the Justice 2 Committee and bizzarely lied through his teeth, attempting to deny the obvious content of his own memos, revealing a catalogue of intervention & interference in claims & complaints against solicitors in Scotland.
This problem however, is not limited to the legal profession.
Want to sue a Hospital or medial professional for negligence ? You will find the very same insurance cartel insure those same medical professionals you are trying to sue .. so your lawyers (if you can get someone to take on the case) will be insured by the same insurers who insure the medical professionals.
Have a dispute with a local Government department, or even a department of the Scottish Government which has caused you financial loss through negligence, or breached your human rights or caused you a reason to sue them ? You will find the very same insurance cartel again, insure many of those workers and departments of local & national Government.
Before you ask .. yes, many departments of the Scottish Government are still insured by Marsh UK, the same insurers of the Law Society of Scotland and many other professionals ... and you can find more about that in article I wrote about that earlier, where funnily enough, John Swinney, before he became Cabinet Secretary for Finance, asked questions on the previous Scottish Executive's dealings with Marsh UK.
A very interesting monopoly don't you think ? Where one big insurance cartel, represented by among others, Marsh UK, control most of the professional indemnity insurance cover throughout public services, and the most popular or most required services from the private sector - in effect control the public's access to legal services & access to justice when the actions of those concerned may merit legal action from a member of the public.
Why haven't the OFT investigated this monopoly ?
Well, vested interests perhaps don't want this monopoly interested, particularly since departments of the OFT may just also be insured by a Marsh brokered deal too !
Well, opening up the legal services market as well as opening up the indemnity insurance coverage market for the legal profession would just about do it .. but strong independent regulation of the legal profession would have to follow, and strict rules implemented on how solicitors deal with cases against other solicitors & legal representatives, such as negligence or other damages actions .. no more of the Marsh/Law Society claims fixing policies of the likes of Douglas Mill ... and believe me, we are talking about claims fixing here – where either the public have been prevented from getting access to legal services or their actual litigation has been purposely crippled against professionals insured by the same insurance cartels, involving the likes of Marsh UK.
The attempts by the Law Society of Scotland, and it's sponsored political allies to stall moves to heel the public's relationship with Scotland's failing justice system & legal profession continue unabated, and despite moves by campaign groups, consumer organisations, and even myself to move the process along, the vested interests of injustice seem to have the edge for now, but what is this thing they fear most ?
With the present levels of public disrespect of the legal profession & dissatisfaction of the abysmal quality of legal services & restricted access to justice in Scotland, it is now time for matters to be put right, for someone to come forth and heel the deep divisions between lawyer & client, which are damaging the legal profession and the very foundations of justice itself in Scotland.
It is a very easy step to take, and none too complicated a one, where simply the sins of the past must be acknowledged by the legal profession, and put right.
Complaints and scandals, some decades old, need addressed in the here & now, they must be reconsidered, given redress, and given the very closure which should have followed at the time of incident, which the Law Society of Scotland and the legal profession consistently failed to do, and still fail to do.
To understand the present and the future, one must first understand the past, where complaints were and still are regulated by the Law Society of Scotland in a lawyer regulates lawyer approach.
For the last couple of decades , complaints against lawyers have soared from two to three thousand a year in the early 1990's to between five thousand to eight thousand a year after 1998. An almost minuscule percentage of those complaints ever see the client actually get back what was lost to the inaction, negligence, or incompetence of their solicitor.
The Law Society of Scotland, has spectacularly used self regulation over its decades of existence to ensure that very policy ... complain against your lawyer, and you get nowhere, and just for good measure, are denied access to justice & legal services in the future.
While of course, many lawyers who have faced serious client complaints over everything from embezzlement to theft of property, even identity theft on a grand scale, have generally gotten away with it while the Law Society has sat there as the profession's governing body ensuring the particular complaint gets binned and the client gets no redress for what happened.
Of course, throwing out complaint after complaint, many with genuine tales of severe wrongdoing, even negligence on the part of their solicitors, eventually builds up a great swathe of disgruntled clients, who genuinely have been wronged by solicitors, and further wronged by the legal profession's regulator who has done nothing for them.
Thus with the great swathe of disgruntled clients, and members of the public who have read of scandal after scandal involving crooked lawyers, the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007 was born to 'redress' the public perception of Scotland's legal profession, seen as dire, crooked, corrupt and generally a bad place to trust a lawyer do any kind of legal business for individuals or the corporate sector.
Such as things are with the LPLA Act, the legislators have failed entirely to restore any level of public confidence in the ability of anyone to impartially regulate lawyers and as things stand, it can only get worse, as the policies of the current although outgoing Law Society of Scotland Chief Executive Douglas Mill, continue to ensure stall after stall on both regulatory and access to justice reforms.
Douglas Mill - Law Society Chief Executive who would rather that lawyers regulate lawyers ... whitewashing preferred !
Even before the new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission takes its first shaky steps, revelations that Law Society staff who may have purposely mishandled tens of thousands of client complaints against lawyers in the past, have transferred over to the new commission, complete even with former "Lay Members" of the Law Society's "Complaints Committee" circuit, have given the public a taste of things to come - which is basically 'expect the same' treatment as before.
You can read more in my earlier report on the problems & scandals of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission here : Scottish Legal Complaints Commission - protecting the public or protecting the legal profession ?
Kenny MacAskill - SNP owes Law Society a big debt .. but who voted who in last May ?
As things stand, only a madman would trust a lawyer who has 25 negligence complaints made by clients against them, but at present, the public are not allowed to know such statistics or information, so madmen are aplenty.
This happens only because clients don't know what they are getting into .. but clients would know what or who they were getting into if a solicitor's full regulatory disclosure was required for client-solicitor agreements, as I have reported on in the past.
However, there is a good 'first step' the legal profession, and the Government could take to heal the public's relationship with the legal profession. That simple step, is : Truth & Reconciliation.
Truth & Reconciliation doesn't have to mean that vast swathes of the legal profession end up jobless over the many clients they have ruined over the years, but it does mean that those clients and members of the public who had their finances or lives ruined all just because of a lawyer, must be fully and compassionately compensated for the terrible wrongs made upon them, which should never have occurred.
Accountability must too be apportioned if those wrongs are to be righted, and professionals must answer for their actions in some way or another, but the overwhelming aim of this move is to heal the public's mistrust of a legal profession which uses every twist & turn, every deceit, cuts every corner and fiddles as it goes, to get off the hook from a complaint or scandal which has ruined a life.
Petition PE1033 - A proposal of Truth & Reconciliation for the public & legal profession to heal the client - solicitor relationship.
Regrettably, as I reported before, my parliamentary petition was silenced on the orders of the Law Society of Scotland itself, who sent one of their well known number to the Parliament, by way of letter ... Mr Michael Clancy.
I am indeed sorry that Mr Clancy, again, typically enforces the Law Society's widely held belief that members of the public who dissent from the Law Society's policy on regulation must be hunted down in every way imaginable .. but it is nevertheless time that moves are put forward for a fairer deal of those who suffer from the legal profession's sins of the past.
It could achieve so much for Scotland, by doing not too much ... and it would be good for everyone to finally lay the sins of the past to rest, properly and compassionately to show Scotland the legal profession, and the legal system itself is capable of recognising and putting right the wrongs it has committed.
Now if that were to happen .. people might just show a little more much needed respect for both the legal profession and Scots Law ... and perhaps more importantly, clients will have a sense of security & trust to use Scots legal services again, which at present, cannot really be trusted to perform adequately.That has to be good for everyone !
How about it everyone ? A little Truth & Reconciliation to help Scots Justice and legal services get back on track by getting the polluter who caused the problem to put it right .. with a little leadership in this area shown by Government and political representatives ?


text:
CfP: Geopolitics and the geography of global shipping
Prof. Pengjun Zhao
School of Urban Planning and Design, Peking University, China
Deputy Chair of the IGU Commission on Transport and Geography
Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Hans-Dietrich Haasis
Chair of Maritime Business and Logistics
Faculty of Business Studies and Economics, University of Bremen, Germany
Dr. Cesar Ducruet
The French Research Institute for Scientific Research (CNRS)
UMR 7235 EconomiX, Paris-Nanterre, France
Introduction of Issue:
The term Geopolitics is normally used to describe the national zones of interest, influence, or clash, which are constrained by geographical factors' impacts (Germond, 2015). The geopolitics events have significantly affected the national economic development and supply chain security, with no sector being more severely influenced than maritime business and global logistics, particularly for the strategic resources supply chain. It is widely believed that the rising geopolitical tensions are threatening global shipping (e.g., UNCTAD, 2018; Baracuhy, 2016; Khan et al., 2022). The geopolitical events or tensions affect global shipping in many ways. It is noted that geopolitics events, whether positive or negative, can affect the maritime shipping network, maritime trade pattern, global logistics performance, security of supply chain, strategic resources price, maritime transport costs, etc. (e.g., Kotcharin and Maneenop,
2020; Hendricks and Singhal, 2005). In recent decades, many scholars and practitioners have paid more attention to the impact of some geopolitics events on strategic resources and supply chain structure. For example, the recent geopolitical tensions caused by the Russia-Ukraine crisis led to an increase in the prices of global natural gas and oil. Meanwhile, shipping executives and crewing agencies have estimated that crews from Russia and Ukraine make up 17% of the world's 1.9 million sailors, and at least 60,000 sailors are currently at sea or at ports waiting (Costas Paris, 2022). This example reveals
that the geopolitics event is an important factor in the performance and security of global logistics and shipping. This is particularly vital to countries which oil, gas, iron ore, and other resources are
heavily replied on import (e.g., Khan et al., 2021, Dong and Kong, 2016). Global shipping plays a key role in these countries' industrial and manufacturing activities, for example, China, India, Japan (e.g., Umbach, 2010; Chien et al., 2020). Moreover, the economic system of resource-exporting countries may also face challenges of unstable global shipping influenced by geopolitical tensions, for example, Australia, Brazil, and Middle East (e.g., Abdel-Latif and El-Gamal, 2020; Salameh and Chedid, 2020).
Studies on geopolitics and global shipping is important for policymaking in relation to international resources trade and supply chain security. The relevant research can contribute to the maritime logistics providers, industry, trade companies, and other stakeholders that can timely formulate the appropriate measurements to face the challenges caused by geopolitics events. Currently, most studies have focused on the effects of geopolitics on natural resources shipping (e.g., Khan et al., 2021), shipping
industry (e.g., Kotcharin and Maneenop, 2020), maritime security (e.g., Germond, 2015), China's maritime silk road initiative (e.g., Blanchard and Flint, 2017), shipping cost (e.g., Scarsi, 2009), and stock returns (Gkillas et al., 2018), etc. Nevertheless, some significant research gaps still need to be fulfilled in the field of geopolitics and global shipping. Firstly, most research is conducted from the views of
management, market, and economics (e.g., Khan et al., 2021; Kotcharin and Maneenop, 2020; Garlick, 2018; Palit, 2017). Considerable research has paid less attention to the effects of geopolitics on the maritime business and global logistics from a transport geography perspective. Secondly, many studies have commonly employed the panel data to analyze the geopolitics and maritime shipping on a macro-level from the long-term (e.g., Suárezde Vivero and Mateos, 2017), but the big data approach (e.g., vessels AIS data) is rarely used to discuss the short-term micro-changes of maritime shipping caused by
geopolitics.
Thirdly, although the quantitate analysis approaches have been extensively employed to discuss the relations between geopolitics and maritime shipping (e.g., Sun et al., 2018; Aloui et al., 2018; Chen et al., 2016), thus far, most studies have paid less attention to their interaction mechanism, maritime shipping network changes, shipping flow volatility, and other problems on transport geography.
This special issue works as a unique forum discussing the challenges and opportunities of geopolitics on global shipping from a transport geography perspective. It would fill the existing research gaps and bring fresh knowledge of geography of maritime transport. This special issue welcomes contributions on the following (non-exhaustive) list of topics:
• Global shipping geopolitics
• Geopolitical intentions and maritime transport network
• Geopolitical risks and shipping price
• Territory development and shipping
• Geopolitics of seaports
• Geopolitics and supply chain
• Geopolitics and international collaboration on maritime logistics infrastructure
• Geopolitical dynamics and shipping market
• Geopolitical space structure and seaborne trade
• Borderland spaces and shipping
• Geopolitics competition and maritime logistics
• Intercountry partnership and global shipping
• China's belt and road initiative and global shipping
• International collaboration organizations and global shipping
[1] Baracuhy, B. (2016). Geopolitical risks and the international business environment: challenges for transnational corporations and their global supply-chain. Journal of Political Risk, 4 (6), 1–7.
[2] Khan K, Su C W, Tao R, et al. (2021), How do geopolitical risks affect oil prices and freight rates? Ocean & Coastal Management, 215: 105955.
[3] Germond, B. (2015). The geopolitical dimension of maritime security. Marine Policy, 54, 137-142.
[4] UNCTAD. 2018. Review of Maritime Transport. United Nations, New York, NY.
[5] Kotcharin S, Maneenop S. (2020). Geopolitical risk and corporate cash holdings in the shipping
industry. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 136: 101862.
[6] Hendricks, K. B., & Singhal, V. R. (2005). An empirical analysis of the effect of supply chain
disruptions on long-run stock price performance and equity risk of the firm. Production and
Operations management, 14(1), 35-52.
[7] Costas Paris. (2022). Thousands of Ukrainian and Russian Sailors Remain Stuck in Ports. The Wall
Street Journal.
[8] Dong, X., & Kong, Z. (2016). The impact of China's natural gas import risks on the national
economy. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 36, 97-107.
[9] Abdel-Latif, H., & El-Gamal, M. (2020). Financial liquidity, geopolitics, and oil prices. Energy
Economics, 87, 104482.
[10] Salameh, R., & Chedid, R. (2020). Economic and geopolitical implications of natural gas export
from the East Mediterranean: The case of Lebanon. Energy Policy, 140, 111369.
[11] Umbach, F. (2010). Global energy security and the implications for the EU. Energy policy, 38(3), 1229-1240.
[12] Chien, F., Sadiq, M., Kamran, H. W., Nawaz, M. A., Hussain, M. S., & Raza, M. (2021). Comovement
of energy prices and stock market return: environmental wavelet nexus of COVID-19 pandemic from the USA, Europe, and China. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(25), 32359-32373.
[13] Blanchard, J. M. F., & Flint, C. (2017). The geopolitics of China's maritime silk road initiative.
Geopolitics, 22(2), 223-245.
[14] Scarsi, R. (2007). The bulk shipping business: market cycles and shipowners' biases. Maritime
Policy & Management, 34(6), 577-590.
[15] Palit, A. (2017). India's economic and strategic perceptions of China's maritime silk road initiative.
[16] Garlick, J. (2018). Deconstructing the China–Pakistan economic corridor: pipe dreams versus
geopolitical realities. Journal of Contemporary China, 27(112), 519-533.
[17] Suárez-de Vivero, J. L., & Mateos, J. C. R. (2017). Forecasting geopolitical risks: oceans as source
of instability. Marine Policy, 75, 19-28.
[18] Gkillas, K., Gupta, R., & Wohar, M. E. (2018). Volatility jumps: The role of geopolitical risks.
Finance Research Letters, 27, 247-258.
[19] Sun, X., Liu, H., Zheng, S., & Chen, S. (2018). Combination hedging strategies for crude oil and
dry bulk freight rates on the impacts of dynamic cross-market interaction. Maritime Policy &
Management, 45(2), 174-196.
[20] Chen, H., Liao, H., Tang, B. J., & Wei, Y. M. (2016). Impacts of OPEC's political risk on the
international crude oil prices: An empirical analysis based on the SVAR models. Energy Economics,
57, 42-49.
[21] Aloui, C., Hkiri, B., Hammoudeh, S., & Shahbaz, M. (2018). A multiple and partial wavelet analysis
of the oil price, inflation, exchange rate, and economic growth nexus in Saudi Arabia. Emerging
Markets Finance and Trade, 54(4), 935-956.
Tentative timeline:
If you are interested, please send a title and a short abstract to Professor Haasis till 30.06.2022
Paper submission opens: September 1, 2022
Paper submission closes: March 30, 2023
Submission and Review:
Full-length articles should be submitted via Journal of Transport Geography online
submission system. Authors should indicate that the paper is being submitted for
consideration for publication in this special issue.
All submissions will be subject to the journal's standard peer-review process. Criteria
for acceptance include originality, contribution, and scientific merit. Acceptance for
publication is based on referees' recommendations.
Please contact the Guest Editors if you have any questions about the call specifics.
CfP as PDF

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Marijuana use is becoming more prevalent among middle-aged and older adults, with 9 percent of adults aged 50-64 and nearly 3 percent of adults 65 and older reporting marijuana use in the past year.
Attitudes towards marijuana use are changing in the U.S., with a growing number of states legalizing medical and recreational marijuana. Although users are more likely to be young adults, the baby boomer generation is unique, having more experience with recreational use of drugs than previous generations.
"The baby boomer generation grew up during a period of significant cultural change, including a surge in popularity of marijuana in the 1960s and 1970s. We're now in a new era of changing attitudes around marijuana, and as stigma declines and access improves, it appears that baby boomers — many of whom have prior experience smoking marijuana — are increasingly using it," said lead author Benjamin Han, MD, MPH, an assistant professor in the Department of Medicine's Division of Geriatric Medicine and Palliative Care and Department of Population Health at NYU Langone Health.
In this study, the researchers analyzed responses from 17,608 adults aged 50 and older from the 2015-2016 National Survey on Drug Use and Health. Participants were asked about use, including when they first used it and whether they used it in the past year. The researchers also looked at respondents' demographics and several health factors, including other substance use and chronic disease.
In the past year, 9 percent of adults aged 50-64 and 2.9 percent of adults 65 and older reported using marijuana. In addition, more than half (54.5 percent) of adults 50-64 have used it at some point in their lives, and over a fifth (22.4 percent) of adults 65 and older have ever used it.
When people first started using the drug varied by age group. Nearly all adults aged 50-64 (92.9 percent), but only roughly half of adults 65 and older (54.7 percent), first used marijuana when they were 21 years of age or younger.
In addition, some adults who used the drug in the past year (15 percent of users aged 50-64 and 22.9 percent of those 65 and older) reported that a doctor had recommended it to them, reflecting the substantial use of marijuana for medical purposes.
A concerning finding from the study was the correlation between marijuana use and other unhealthy substance use. Adults who used the drug were more likely to also report alcohol use disorder, nicotine dependence, cocaine use, and misuse of prescription medications (including opioids and sedatives) than non-users.
The study, "Marijuana use by middle-aged and older adults in the United States, 2015-2016," is published in the journal Drug and Alcohol Dependence. Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health (K23DA043651 and K01DA038800).
← Can Having A Considerate Partner Lead To Longer Life?


table lamps for living room at 20 off retail staunton from Modern Desk Lamps, Take it along when searching for window curtains or another beautifying components image via from: stauntonandhenry.com.
Modern Desk Lamps Effectively » Hanging newspaper lanterns while extremely decorative and great on keeping space, they might not suit all tastes. However, if you look hard enough if Modern Desk Lamps you are established enough you might find or create the one that will suit the appearance and feel of your room. They are good for ambient lighting since they do not take up any living area in any way, they are excellent for places inside your home where people congregate. Wall lights and conventional dangling lamps can be used for ambient lamps and then for accenting. They are able to come in a great variety of types and can be produced to suit any decorative styles you require. They too do not take up any living area. desk lamps lamps plus modern,modern desk lamps australia,modern table lamps with black shades, Modern Desk Lamps Effectively » A lot of the mentioned lamp types as well as those not mentioned can be made into ornamental features by changing their colours, lighting, color and size. Light shades which can come in various styles which range from respected Tiffany to Mica to modern. You could expect these styles by changing their habits, Modern Desk Lamps, colors, and materials. Type of bulbs if they be incandescent, fluorescent, or LED, can likewise have an effect on the bulbs' brightness, color, size and the consumption. It's also advisable to pay attention to the stands, and mounting brackets in order receive the best out of your lights decoration wise.
We hope you can find what you need here. We always effort to show a picture with HD resolution or at least with perfect images. Modern Desk Lamps » Get Table Lamps for Living Room at 20 Off Retail Staunton can be beneficial inspiration for those who seek an image according specific categories; you can find it in this site. Finally all pictures we have been displayed in this site will inspire you all..


Sivia Katz has created original Ketubot, special commissions and calligraphic watercolors since 1972. Her paintings, based on Hebrew texts, combine the subtlety of contemporary color and design with the warmth of nature and the lyrical grace of the Hebrew letter. Her works have been presented to former President Jimmy Carter as well as congregations, Rabbis and community leaders and have been exhibited in museums and galleries throughout America and Israel.


Standing out among the baldpates and gray hairs crowding into a congressional hearing room Thursday morning with "Protect our Pensions" stickers will be 26-year-old Ben Trusnik.
Outlaw Corporate Executive parachutes and pensions before workers pensions are affected.
Make the mighty feel the pinch first.
Back in the 50's & 60's "most" companies had some kind of pension plan for their employees (and free health insurance by the way). Now, "most" companies DON'T have a pension plan (and a lot don't offer ANY health insurance plans). The 401K law implemented in the 80's I believe takes the place of the previous paltry pension plans. Making either the min wage or say 12-15 dollars/hr most employees can't afford to contribute anything to a 401k. S/S alone does not cover the costs to live today for elder retired people, unless like a lot of "couples" both are collecting S/S like my wife and I. Together we make a little over 31k per yr on both of our SS incomes. Now, I am one of the lucky ones as I also have a modest pension from my over 30 yrs in the Teamsters union. Both my wife and I are lower middle class people that never made over 40k per yr when we retired in 2001. The BIGGEST boost to decrease inequality in this country isn't just increasing the min wage (we must do that) but making it easier to join and form a Union.
Good for you for being in unions! Union all the way. This Janus should be running for the hills with the pitch forks following him.
Right. You know those CEOs always get their pensions, perks and profits!
Companies that pay $7.25 minimum wage are depending on taxpayers to pay for food, lodging and healthcare – in the form of food stamps, subsidized housing and Medicaid – for their workers.
I don't want to subsidize WalMart and McDonald's executives and stock holders. They should be forced to pay a living wage and provides defined benefit pensions and decent health insurance!
Fortunately for his co-workers, Janus quit his job. Unfortunately for the rest of us, he is bankrolled now by right-wingers and union busting organizations. He goes around the country telling people they should vote out their unions and stand isolated and alone as they ask gigantic multi-national corporations for raises and better benefits.
And, being easier to form and/or join a union will force them to do that. Ever since Taft/Hartley in 1948 there has been a war on working families by big business and their political allies.
Yes, fortunately for his co workers indeed. What a dope- hope he remains paranoid and senile for the rest of his "life." He goes around with this because he believes unions support abortions and he is a fundie. He is truly off his rocking chair.
Hope you enjoyed it Stack.