Meet Alex Salmond's expensive legal team ... Crowdfunded cash will bankroll Court of Session battle against Nicola Sturgeon's government ... But spare a thought for the two women who made complaints of sexual misconduct against the former First Minister

MUCH has been written about how the #MeToo phenomenon which began in Holywood was confounded in Holyrood with Alex Salmond’s ugly but effective reframing of himself as the victim following allegations of sexual misconduct by two women.

Plenty has also been said about the chutzpah of a wealthy former First Minister passing round an online begging bowl — stuffed with gusto by the blindly loyal — to pay his legal bills.

But so far little is known about the crowdfunded team behind the impending judicial review of how the Scottish Government handled the complaints made against Salmond.

Thanks to other people’s £100,007, he can afford a lot of expensive lawyers. Senior counsel Ronnie Clancy QC will lead in court. At his side will be advocate Duncan Hamilton, a former SNP MSP.

Central to shaping Salmond’s case is the law firm Levy & McRae and its partner David McKie. Those who take an interest in the plots and personalities of Scotland’s legal profession will be familiar with the Glasgow-based entity long favoured by the rich and powerful.

For many years, Salmond’s preferred attack dog was combative media lawyer and part-time sheriff Peter Watson. Perhaps Salmond regards Watson as a spent force following his exit from Levy & McRae, just prior to the arrival of a now abandoned £28.4million writ linked to a collapsed hedge fund.

But with every firm in the land to chose from why would Salmond remain loyal to Levy & McRae? The answer may lie in its chairman Bill Macreath.

It is suggested in some legal circles that Salmond’s decision to hire Levy & McRae may owe as much to Macreath’s own personal experience of dealing with a messy and protracted complaint against himself.

As a founder of the Legal Defence Union, Macreath is sometimes described as the “lawyers’ lawyer” with an intellect in inverse proportion to his desire for the limelight.

The complaint levelled against him in 2005 was of a very different nature to those facing Salmond, but had the potential to be equally damaging to his professional standing.

Another solicitor, Norna Crabbe, had hired Macreath to represent her interests in the dissolution of her law firm.

Crabbe was unhappy with Macreath’s work and formally complained to the Law Society of Scotland who duly appointed an unidentified solicitor — called a "reporter" — to investigate and produce written findings.

Due to work pressure, the reporter withdrew, causing the Law Society to hire a second reporter but they also stood down, due to their identity becoming known.

When in 2009, a third reporter upheld one solitary and minor complaint against Macreath and recommended that no action be taken, Crabbe complained about that. What followed was two years of claim and counter claim, culminating in the third reporter walking off the job.

Along came a fourth reporter who, having started from scratch, arrived at a starkly different conclusion to that of his immediate predecessor.

In 2011, the fourth reporter made eight findings of inadequate professional service and seven of professional misconduct against Macreath.

From the potted history of this tortuous, eight-year saga, one does not need to have a framed LLB on the wall to recognise the Law Society’s complaints process as an absolute dog’s dinner and unfair to both Crabbe and Macreath.

Just as Salmond is now plotting to do, Macreath protested his innocence and turned to the Court of Session where a judge ruled in 2013 that his human right had been violated under Article 6 of European Convention on Human Rights.

One of the transgressions identified was the Law Society’s failure to disclose to Macreath all the material relating to the complaints process.

Central to Salmond’s case is that the Scottish Government’s new complaints process — introduced by Nicola Sturgeon and overseen by top civil servant Leslie Evans, is just as "unfair and unjust" as that conducted by the Law Society — and for the same reason of non disclosure.

Salmond said: "Even now I have not been allowed to see and therefore to properly challenge the case against me. I have not been allowed to see the evidence.”

The parallels are striking — for Salmond, read Macreath and for the Scottish Government, read the Law Society. Little wonder Salmond wants Macreath’s firm onside.

While only a fool would predict a Court of Session outcome, it seems that Salmond’s argument of unfair process will be sympathetically heard.

But as Salmond’s lawyers seize control of the complaint and railroad it into court, spare a thought for the two women who dared to speak up against him and put their faith in the system.

These women's right to and presumed expectation of a fair, speedy and transparent resolution appear to be just as misplaced as that of Norna Crabbe when she complained about another very powerful man more than a decade ago.

© Russell Findlay

This post was temporarily deleted due to live criminal proceedings against Alex Salmond. He was acquitted on March 23, 2020