Above the law

Lord McCluskey contends (Letters, 6 March) that as a consequence of the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) 2007, the Faculty of Advocates "may make rulings on certain limited matters of professional discipline and standards". What he omits is how those "rulings" are determined.

The Faculty of Advocates (like the Law Society) has mastered the art of investigating complaints to protect its members. Inherent bias (an unavoidable aspect of self-regulation) is pervasively deployed and hair-splitting distinctions between professional misconduct and professional negligence ensure the errant advocates are exonerated on both counts.

Lord McCluskey avers that "membership of the faculty confers no immunity on its members in relation to matters of legal right and obligation". By deploying the "hair-splitting" defence mechanism and its natural bias, the faculty almost guarantees "immunity" regarding complaints about professional misconduct and professional negligence. By doing so, it thereby enhances the prospects of its members achieving "immunity" in the courts, where they will face members of the same club – the judiciary.

THOMAS CROOKS

Dundas Street

Edinburgh