By Russell Findlay

Scotland's top judge complained to legal watchdogs over a leading QC's claim that people who represent themselves in court don't get justice.

Andrew Smith QC sent a private email advising a client that going to court without a lawyer - known as a party litigant - was unwise.

In the 2014 email to the client's solicitor, he said: "The Scottish Courts do not cut any slack to party litigants because of their status. In fact, in my experience, they generally enjoy cutting them off at the knees before doing so above the neck. If he goes alone he can forget about justice instructing the result!"

Lord President Lord Carloway complained to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) that Mr Smith's comment was professional misconduct and undermined mutual trust between lawyers and judges.

Lord Carloway also alleged it was "detrimental to the public confidence in the administration of justice".

But his complaint was rejected for investigation by the SLCC, who said it was "totally without merit".

The decision by the country's top judge to formally complain to watchdogs about a prominent QC has surprised some in the legal establishment.

One senior figure said: "The email was sent five years ago and contained candid advice about party litigants. It was a private communication to a solicitor and would never have been made public.

"Quite how the Lord President got hold of this and then thought it worthy of complaint is unclear. It seems ill-judged and for the SLCC to dismiss it in such strong terms is telling.

"Smith is no soft touch and is very experienced but was really taken aback. One concern is about what happens next time he is Lord Carloway's court."

In SLCC documents seen by STV News, Mr Smith told the legal watchdog that his confidential email was never meant to be made public and that courts don't give party litigants "excessive latitude".

He also said he is entitled to express an opinion, citing Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights guaranteeing freedom of expression.

The SLCC added: "Mr Smith states that he provided advice in the email with Mr X's [the client's] best interests in mind in a manner that plainly made use of hyperbole in a tone that was not intended to be taken literally."

The lawyer has over 30 years' experience in England and Scotland and currently represents David Grier whose prosecution connected to the 2011 takeover of Rangers collapsed.

Mr Smith is pursuing Mr Grier's £2m claim against Police Scotland for allegedly manipulating the legal system, which they deny.

The complaint emerged as another senior judge faces an employment tribunal claim by an experienced lawyer. Advocate John Halley is taking action against Scottish Child Abuse Inquiry chair Lady Smith for alleged discrimination which she is contesting.

Mr Smith declined to be interviewed by STV News and said only that he had raised "wider issues" with Gordon Jackson QC, Dean of the Faculty of Advocates - the trade body for the majority of Scotland's advocates and QCs. A Faculty spokesman also decline to comment.

A Judicial Office for Scotland spokeswoman said: "If a complaint were made to the SLCC, there is a robust process that the SLCC would follow."

Lord Carloway's complaint would have remained secret due to laws governing the regulation of lawyers.

Members of the public are unable to find out about complaints made to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC), no matter how serious they are.

It is illegal for the SLCC to publicly divulge details of a complaint - although the organisation is lobbying to change the law.

An insider said: "The SLCC cannot comment on individual cases, with the law making it a criminal offence.

"This includes disclosing the names of the parties to a complaint. However, the SLCC are working to get this changed in order to be more transparent."

The SLCC is the gateway for complaints about the estimated 11,000 lawyers in Scotland.

However, it only examines complaints about professional service while the Law Society of Scotland investigates alleged misconduct.

Critics saw this is a conflict of interest as the Law Society is also the trade body which represents the interests of the majority of lawyers.