Scottish Legal Complaints Commission Reviews 

My 89 year old father who has vascular dementia and a certificate of incapacity and resides in a care home was assessed as being of sound mind to sign a revocation document changing his long standing POA to my brother and sister. The solicitor Harper McLeod satisfied themselves my Dad did in fact have capacity with no medical intervention - totally beggars believe that the SLCC think my complaint is totally without merit and does not breach any conduct rules. If I hadn't manage to stop this process progressing it could've had catastrophic implications for my Dad and caused our family weeks of unnecessary stress. Shame on you all - I would strongly suggest the conduct rules need reviewing.

Real positive experience. You have to patient as it take several weeks for your case to be taken forward, but I cannot fault the support and professional services that I received that led to a swift resolution to my complaints against a law firm. Really appreciated the understanding and support I received

My initial complaint was met with the handler instantly offering an excuse for the behaviour of the law firm even before they had passed it on for consideration. How's that for objectivity and lack of bias?
I have been a teacher for 25 years, explaining the meaning, context and use of the English language and I also hold an Honours Degree in Law from Glasgow University, where I was taught the meaning, context and use of legal language. Suffice it to say, the SLCC ignore the logical meaning and interpretation of the salient facts provided and the Law Society of Scotland's Standards for Solicitors and interpret them in the most venally corrupt, illogical and absurd fashion - all to excuse the lies and incompetence of their so-called 'profession'.
On occasion I have questioned my life-changing decision to choose teaching as opposed to practicing law - my experience with the SLCC makes me proud of the Scottish teaching profession and our ethical standards, and so glad that I did not succumb to the swamp of moral decay and dishonesty that is the Scottish legal 'profession' as so perfectly exemplified by the SLCC.

We complained as a solicitor/legal firm took 19 months to complete a probate following the death of a loved one. Due to the length of time it took, shares that were in the estate lost value. Tax that was paid in advance to HMRC on the estimate of the value of the estate had to be clawed back to due to the incompetence of the solicitor/firm. Contact was one way and when we complained to SLCC they pretty much allowed the company away with it. We escalated the complaint up as the resolve was around £150 at the first tier on an estate with a value of around £950,000.00 that the firm sat on for over 18 months. The arrogance of the firm when they accepted no liability for delays after their solicitor was dismissed due to sharing images online of children. Amazing that the SLCC did such a bad job of something that should have been a slam dunk. They all stick together . Morally void. It is worth noting that this is solicitors/Lawyers marking the homwork of their mates.

Very poor response time 9 weeks. I work in the NHS and this simply would not be tolerated there ! No one made any effort to discuss my concerns. I then got a brief email to say my complaint had not been upheld with limited info to support this. Felt very disappointed and just would not trust them - seems they just support their own. A very very poor service. I have addressed with my MSP and fed back to them. We complained about lack of transparency with legal fees to settle my dad’s estate which reached over 12k.

After having the worst experience ever dealing with a conveyancing lawyer I felt moved to put in a complaint. To be fair, I wasn't expecting anything to come from it, but my allocated case Investigator was brilliant!
Sekinat was clear in everything required and managed my case fairly and with care and diligence. I suppose it helped that I had kept everything from emails and texts to be able to provide adequate evidence to back my complaint. My faith in the Scottish legal system was at an all time low so thanks to the SLCC I am now able to put a horrible experience behind me.

A complete and utter waste of my time. I had reservations about making a complaint about a firm of solicitors and was proved correct. They really need people who know the legal position before taking on your case.

Sturgeon seen and pictured beside the Motorhome at Murrells Parents home in 2022, and an Email and a text that she sent stating that the Motorhome was going to be used for promoting Scottish Independence, This information and documentation was given to Stuart Murray of Murray Ormiston in 2022, but he wrote to his client saying he would not be citing those witnesses INCLUDING THE FORMER FIRST MINISTER NICOLA STURGEON, That letter was dated 5th January 2023, But Sturgeon did not make her resignation public until the Middle of February 2023, so Murray said that Sturgeon was the former First Minister on the 5th January 2023. Murray says he does not have his file that he was using for this client, he said he sent it to SLCC then the Law Society, Then he said he sent it to a Judicial Factor, The Judicial Factor, SLCC and the Law Society says they do not have the files, Now Murray has been suspended by the Law Society and his company Murray Ormiston closed down and an investigation is being conducted into his finances, and SLCC and the Law Society are refusing to investigate Murray for his lying letter dated 5th January 2023, and Murray helping hide the photograph of Sturgeons standing beside the Motorhome in Murrell parents home in 2022 and her email and text about what the motorhome was going to be used for, SLCC says it is the Law Society that should investigate this, the CEO of the Law Society Ben Kemp says it is SLCC that should investigate this, so they are passing it back and forth between each other, SLCC sent the complaint against Murray to the Law Society on the 26th September 2025 and the Law Society is just sitting on it, they said they sent an email to Murray to explain the letter dated the 5th January 2023, but Murray refused to reply to that email, now the Law Society has written to Murray again and Murray has sent a letter to the Law Society from a Doctor saying Murray is not fit at the moment to respond to that letter for 8 weeks, but he was given an email last year to respond to the Law Society but he refused to respond to that request, .And remember in the Aberdeen Evening Express December 6th 2007 City Solicitor denies theft from store, Aberdeen Solicitor is facing a charge of stealing ajacket from a city store, Murray is accused of shoplifting at John Lewis in George Street Aberdeen

I submitted a complaint to the SLCC regarding conduct by a firm of solicitors in connection with active court proceedings. The complaint raised three specific issues, all supported by documentation.

The SLCC dismissed all three issues and labelled the complaint "totally without merit" — a strong conclusion that in my view went considerably further than the facts warranted. On at least one of the three issues, the SLCC's reasoning sidestepped the actual grievance entirely and addressed a different point from the one I raised.

The process gave the impression of a body that exists to protect the legal profession rather than to provide meaningful recourse to members of the public. The threshold for finding any fault with a solicitor's conduct appears so high in practice as to be virtually unreachable, particularly where the complaint concerns how a firm has characterised events in pleadings.

As a party litigant without legal representation, going up against a firm of solicitors and then finding the regulatory body unwilling to engage properly with your complaint is a deeply frustrating experience. I would have more confidence in the SLCC if its decisions engaged with the substance of what is submitted rather than finding the quickest route to dismissal.

Shockingly bad service, myself and partner have proof of disability discrimination, false documentation and witnesses,perjury, un viewed video evidence on our defence the list goes on and on, they didn't support us when needed and infact caused more harm.
This is not sour grapes this is losing our home and all our savings because no one would look and help its toxic.
They didn't answer questions directly asked and shut the door in our faces.
So much for Scottish Law.

The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) does not exist to protect consumers or investigate malpractice; it operates exclusively as a rigid administrative filter designed to dismiss legitimate complaints through weaponised technicalities.

The commission relies on a baseline institutional bias where severe service failures and professional betrayals are conveniently whitewashed under the absolute guise of "solicitor’s professional discretion." They afford an absolute presumption of "good faith" to the unverified internal assertions of legal firms, while objective evidence, digital logs, and documented vulnerabilities submitted by consumers are met with systemic skepticism and immediate procedural exclusion. They actively use the preliminary "sifting" stage to bury malpractice, hiding behind rigid statutory timelines to protect the legal cartel from transparent regulatory scrutiny.

Even the historical leadership of this entity has admitted that the current framework is completely unfit for purpose. It is a broken, circular system that inflicts secondary trauma on vulnerable individuals while ensuring absolute institutional self-protection. A thoroughly useless and biased regulatory screen.

A lawyer admits he made a mistake in writing yet this panel does not accept that he has made a mistake.......
These panel members are not trained lawyers.......

Joke

The SLCC are a terrible organisation. I am hundreds of pounds out of pocket due to them regarding a complaint against Nick Whelan at Whelan & Co in Arbroath. The solicitor lied and the SLCC didn't do anything about it.

You ignored everything i have said. You misinterpreted the facts and made wrong decision. The staff do not listen. You have your own agenda and it is to favour solicitors, not people that complain. No matter what i said, you pretended to no not hear it. I dont know what is the purpose of your organisation but it is not hepling people. You helped to destroy my and my kids lifes.

While the communication was very good and thorough, I do feel that SLCC needs to take a clear and firm view on helping people who are unfairly treated by law firms!

Awful organisation. Extremely poor service and communication. Wait time of up to 15 weeks before complaints can be allocated and they simply close down your complaint if you do not respond to an email they claim to send out but doesn’t get received. Appalling waste of time and leaves a very poor Scottish legal profession with no real accountability and therefore, unsurprisingly standards continue to slide even further. A disgrace.

The SLCC rejected my complaint as "totally without merit" using demonstrably flawed logic.
Issue 1 - Approval contradiction:
The SLCC concluded I approved a letter based on my email saying "if you're happy with this, we can proceed."
Their own decision acknowledges:

I explicitly rejected the previous draft
I wasn't shown the final version until I demanded it a month later
The final version had already been sent

Yet they concluded I approved something I never saw.
Issue 2 - Conflict of interest:
My 17-page grievance (page 16, underlined in red) explicitly stated: "Mr A sold the product that triggered the complaint AND conducted the investigation."
This is a clear ACAS Code breach - an investigator cannot be implicated in the incident being investigated.
The solicitor's 2-page letter: no mention of this conflict. No legal framework.
The SLCC concluded the conflict "was not overlooked" because the letter mentioned grievance handling procedures - completely missing the investigation conflict I'd identified.
Real-world consequences:
The solicitor's firm used the SLCC's "totally without merit" finding as evidence in Sheriff Court debt proceedings. The court accepted it as authoritative. I lost.
A flawed SLCC decision becomes court evidence with no way to challenge it.
No oversight exists:

Law Society: "We can't investigate unless SLCC refers"
SPSO: "SLCC not in our jurisdiction"
Court of Session appeal: £5k-£15k (I'm on Universal Credit)

My wife and me were selling a flat. The buyer's solicitor decided (point of contention within the complaint) between 3 working days and on the day missives were meant to be concluded that the client requiered a damp report. The written offer had been recieved months earlier. This was clearly a last minute request, and constituted an undue delay.

We managed to get the report in two working days, but the goal posts kept on shifting, despite a last-minute effort, we lost the flat sale, causing issues in the chain.

Long story short, the main complaint was regarding this delay for this request, as it proved to be a hefty cost in approved holidays, money, emotional toll etc. A low estimate of the money lost directly due to the solicitor's delay in requesting a damp report could have been upwards £10,000.

This was a clear cut case. We gathered all phone relevant phone records, email chains. Argumented our case with accurate timelines, names of members of staff and locations. We basically provided everything a written report should have included.

The investigator struggled to obtain a response from the solictor (who by the way had already been censored previously by the Law Society of Scotland for fabricating statements. Anyone who looks him up can find this data). After some struggle, the solicitor proivided a very condescending answer in one paragraph.

To our surprise the investigator's report was just a collection of qutotes coming directly from our SLCC complaint and the Solicitor's one paragraph reply. Despite the investigator agreeing that the request had an undue delay, they sided with the solicitor.

The report recieved was severely lacking in new information. It was quite frankly a copy-and-paste. Not worth the wait or time we had invested in it.

The cherry on top was that the investigator pushed us to accept this poorly made report. We disagreed and took it to an appeal. The appeal sided once again with the solicitor.

Overall a terrible experience, seemingly by reading everybody else's experience, they always side with the solicitor even in clear cut cases.

For some reason, which I can't understand, they invited me to write a review of their services.

I will be taking my case to my local MP and MSP once the Law Society of Scotland concludes their own investigation, as we don't want to taint that process. We will put forward all the failings of the SLCC we experienced.

I can't recommend this organisation that seemingly does no in depth investigation, nor does it help the public get at least a legal answer as to why they can't award their complaint. By the end, we were expecting at the very least a legal explanation as to why it is acceptable to change conditions of missives. To not even have that, and then get a letter stating that any further challenge is costly, makes you feel that you wasted all your time.

Terrible.

Gillian and Chris within the SLCC done a fantastic job we’re very compassionate and caring through a poor service that was given to my late father when he was drafting his will, fully upheld and compensation awarded, highly recommend

We had an issue with our solicitors, we took our complaint through the grievance procedure with the firm but were told that everything they had done was correct.
After a lot of stress and worry we contacted the SLCC.
The online form was easy and the response was quick, we were told that it could take up to 15 weeks to investigate the complaint.
The case was allocated to an investigater well within the time frame.
After reviewing our complaint we agreed to mediation, however the firms offer was not agreeable, we countered their offer with ours and with the help of the SLCC the firm agreed to a full refund of fees paid.
Overall an easy experience with a good result.