Campaigners hope transfer will save city's court

Campaigners say they still hope to keep court provision in their city after a change of heart from the Ministry of Justice.

An action group based in Chichester has pleaded with the government to keep Crown and county court work in the existing magistrates’ court building.

That building closed in September but is yet to be sold: the separate combined court is due for closure in June next year. Lawyers in the city say all work can be moved to the purpose-built magistrates’ court, maintaining provision in the city.

The Chichester campaigners are believed to be the last remaining group opposing one of the 86 court and tribunal closures announced across England and Wales.

They received a letter from the MoJ indicating a change of heart after lawyers acting on behalf of Resolution West Sussex confirmed their intention to initiate proceedings for judicial review.

The government confirmed to the Gazette it has agreed to reconsider the proposal for alternative provision for Chichester Combined Court work, although they stress it does not affect plans to close the combined court itself.

Chichester family solicitor and mediator Edward Cooke, on behalf of the campaign group, said the continued provision of court services in the city is vital for local people.

‘Our proposal for a new Combined Court in the old Magistrates Court building is, in our view, the best solution for all concerned,’ he said. ‘The new court would handle not only Crown court criminal work, but also family and civil cases - in other words, county court work.

“Critically, the government’s decision of 29 September, save for providing for video link evidence to be given from Chichester police station (which we believe would be very problematic and indeed HMCTS themselves previously indicated this would not be a suitable venue) would mean victims and witnesses of crime having to travel as far as Lewes for criminal trials.’

Cooke confirmed the legal proceedings will be dropped pending a decision on the future of the court.

The MoJ says its local leadership group will now consider the lawyers’ proposal and make a recommendation to the HMCTS property board.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Campaigners hope transfer will save city's court

‘Conflict of interest’ fear over FCA’s senior managers regime

In-house lawyers could face a conflict of interest with their employers if they are included in the Financial Conduct Authority’s reporting and accountability regime, the Law Society has warned.

Responding to a discussion paper Overall responsibility and the legal function, the Law Society said the legal function should not be incorporated into the scheme, which was set up to make senior figures personally accountable for malpractice. The resulting conflict of interest between in-house lawyers and their employers could inhibit their ability to do their job effectively.

The FCA’s discussion paper, published in September, aims to clarify how and why the legal function is currently captured under the Senior Managers and Certification Regime, which came into force in March. 

The rules aim to enhance a culture of individual responsibility and accountability within firms.

If things go wrong, the regime will allow senior managers to be held to account where they are at fault for misconduct that falls within their area of responsibility.

According to the FCA, current rules require a senior manager to have overall responsibility for every activity, including the legal function.

Catherine Dixon, Law Society chief executive, said: ‘Tensions could arise where demands of compliance with the regime collide with their role as legal adviser to the organisation they serve.

‘It could result in the organisation not getting the expert in-house legal advice they need – which is not in the interests of the organisation or the regulatory authority conducting any investigation as it could result in the organisation not doing the right thing or in delays whilst external advice is sought.’

Dixon said it could also add to the regulatory burden because solicitors will be regulated by both the FCA and the Solicitors Regulation Authority, causing duplication and higher costs of doing business.

Including the legal team in the regime could erode legal professional privilege by requiring the in-house team to disclose sensitive and confidential legal advice to third parties.

Dixon continued: ‘It is important that LPP is not compromised and that our justice system is not undermined by the unintended consequences of regulatory change.’

The FCA is accepting comments on the discussion paper until 9 January.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

‘Conflict of interest’ fear over FCA’s senior managers regime

Council’s ‘secret’ grant to law firm under the microscope again

Bolton council will hold an extraordinary meeting next month where the controversial £300,000 grant to personal injury firm Asons Solicitors is expected to come under further scrutiny.

The 11 January corporate and external security meeting will be the latest stage in a row in which the council's leader, Labour councillor Cliff Morris, has defied calls for his resignation over what opposition councillors have dubbed a ‘secret grant’.

The grant was signed off under the council's emergency powers procedure. It was supposed to be for Asons to refurbish its town centre offices. However, the firm’s accounts show it also in a dispute with the taxman to the tune of £300,000 and reported a loss of more than £1m in the year to May 2015.

There is no proof that the grant and the tax bill are linked.

Separately, the council has now revealed some of the reasons behind awarding to grant.

Local newspaper Bolton News quotes councillor Ebrahim Adia, executive cabinet member for development and regeneration, and Cllr Morris denying that the £300,000 had anything to do with the £300,000 tax bill. Morris stated on the record that no one within the council with any links to Asons had been involved in brokering the deal.

Cllr Adia said councils often provided grants to local businesses as a way of growing income from business rates at a time of public spending cuts. ‘The Asons decision, like a lot of decisions that the leader or other executive members have taken over the last year or longer is within that context,’ he said. 

‘It is also worth pointing out that while that £300,000 could have been spent on other things, like a one-off highways scheme, while would have been good for the people of Bolton, once that money is gone it is gone.’

Asons, according to cllr Adia, had been offered competitive rates by two other local authorities and the council wanted to ensure it stayed in the town centre.

He said the grant was pushed through under emergency powers because council officers needed permission to start the state aid approval process which can take several months.

Morris has also called for an independent audit, which he said would provide full transparency.

The statements have done little to assuage the anger of competing law firms.

Stephen Crompton, partner in the Bolton office of north-west law firm Russell Russell, told the Gazette he had been surprised at the number of people he knows who have brought up the subject and indicated that the grant should not have been made, that questions still need to be answered and in most cases that cllr Morris should resign.

He added: 'Whether the answers provided by the council today will satisfy all remains to be seen. The outcome of the auditors report is now awaited with interest.'

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Council’s ‘secret’ grant to law firm under the microscope again

Solicitors fined and suspended over role in investment scheme

Three solicitors who became embroiled in a investment scheme in which there was a ‘significant risk of conflict’ have been suspended and ordered to pay more than £60,000 in costs. Michael John Davies, Clare Louise Taman and Charles Valentine Fraser-Macnamara failed to act with integrity, according to a ruling handed down by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal.

The three worked at Black Country-based Sanders & Co. They faced a common allegation, that they ‘acted or permitted Sanders & Co to act for Brazil-based Ecohouse Developments in relation to a complex overseas investment scheme for more than 800 individuals'.

According to the ruling, individuals invested in the scheme, 'despite there being a conflict between the interests of the client, the interests of each individual investor, and the interests of the firm’.

Davies and Taman both faced another charge that they became involved in a scheme outside their area of expertise and ‘where there was no legitimate need’ for solicitors to be involved. Both were also accused of permitting payments into, and transfers or withdrawals from, the firm’s client account.

Upholding the first allegation, the SDT said Davies, Taman and Fraser-Macnamara failed to act with integrity or behave in a way that maintains the public trust.

The same was found for the second allegation. The SDT said the pair failed to act with integrity but did allow their independence to become compromised.

Davies was ordered to pay £35,000 in costs while Taman was ordered to pay £17,500 and Fraser-Macnamara £10,000. All three were suspended for a year.

However, the tribunal accepted the solicitors’ arguments that they should not be struck off, because Fraser-Macnamara had failed to disclose his involvement with Ecohouse.

As a nominee director at the company, Fraser-Macnamara was paid £200 per day. The tribunal added that every time Sanders & Co signed up an investor, Fraser-Macnamara ‘would receive money’ at the same time as being a nominee director of Ecohouse.

A fourth defendant, Katherine May Fraser-Macnamara, Charles Fraser-Mancamara’s daughter, was handed no order.

Under the scheme, an investor would make an investment linked to a specific unit on a development and would receive a percentage profit on the investment plus the return of investment monies, to be paid 12 months after the initial investment. 

Ecohouse suspended its worldwide operations in November 2014, following the intervention of the Brazilian police, the SDT said.

Around 849 people invested in the scheme but then complained about the release of their money at a time when the investors believed the relevant stage of construction had not been reached.

The judgment comes at a time when the SRA is sending out warning notices informing the public about solicitors involved in ‘get-rich-quick’ investment schemes. 

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Solicitors fined and suspended over role in investment scheme

Council’s ‘secret’ grant under the microscope again

Bolton council will hold an extraordinary meeting next month where the controversial £300,000 grant to personal injury firm Asons Solicitors is expected to come under further scrutiny.

The 11 January corporate and external security meeting will be the latest stage in a row in which the council's leader, Labour councillor Cliff Morris, has defied calls for his resignation over what opposition councillors have dubbed a ‘secret grant’.

The grant was signed off under the council's emergency powers procedure. It was supposed to be for Asons to refurbish its town centre offices. However, the firm’s accounts show it also in a dispute with the taxman to the tune of £300,000 and reported a loss of more than £1m in the year to May 2015.

There is no proof that the grant and the tax bill are linked.

Separately, the council has now revealed some of the reasons behind awarding to grant.

Local newspaper Bolton News quotes councillor Ebrahim Adia, executive cabinet member for development and regeneration, and Cllr Morris denying that the £300,000 had anything to do with the £300,000 tax bill. Morris stated on the record that no one within the council with any links to Asons had been involved in brokering the deal.

Cllr Adia said councils often provided grants to local businesses as a way of growing income from business rates at a time of public spending cuts. ‘The Asons decision, like a lot of decisions that the leader or other executive members have taken over the last year or longer is within that context,’ he said. 

‘It is also worth pointing out that while that £300,000 could have been spent on other things, like a one-off highways scheme, while would have been good for the people of Bolton, once that money is gone it is gone.’

Asons, according to cllr Adia, had been offered competitive rates by two other local authorities and the council wanted to ensure it stayed in the town centre.

He said the grant was pushed through under emergency powers because council officers needed permission to start the state aid approval process which can take several months.

Morris has also called for an independent audit, which he said would provide full transparency.

The statements have done little to assuage the anger of competing law firms.

Stephen Crompton, partner in the Bolton office of north-west law firm Russell Russell, told the Gazette he had been surprised at the number of people he knows who have brought up the subject and indicated that the grant should not have been made, that questions still need to be answered and in most cases that cllr Morris should resign.

He added: 'Whether the answers provided by the council today will satisfy all remains to be seen. The outcome of the auditors report is now awaited with interest.'

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Council’s ‘secret’ grant under the microscope again

Law firms join forces in apprenticeships drive

A group of law firms has come together to recruit apprentices. Muckle, Sintons Law, McDaniels & Co and QualitySolicitors Smith Roddam have joined forces with CILEx Law School and City, University of London Law School to create a six-year apprenticeship programme.

The apprenticeships will lead to an LLB in legal practice from City, University of London, and qualification as a solicitor.

Under the government’s trailblazer scheme, apprentices will work with one law firm for the six years starting in September 2017. 

Apprentices will use CILEx Law School’s online learning resources and City, University of London Law School will provide law teachers to provide face-to-face tuition and support the programme.

Jason Wainwright, managing partner of Muckle, said: ‘We are delighted to be part of this joint venture, leading the way in the north-east to offer a different route into the legal profession for a diverse and talented group of people. It’s refreshing to work collaboratively with other law firms to ensure the north-east is at the forefront of developing regional talent.’

Muckle will hold an informal open day at its offices on Saturday 14 January between 11am and 2pm for candidates interested in applying. Candidates are required to have a minimum of three Bs at A level (or equivalent) and with maths and English GCSEs grades A* to C.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Law firms join forces in apprenticeships drive

Commercial Court dismisses Tchenguiz claim

The Commercial Court has dismissed part of a long-running case surrounding the Tchenguiz brothers and a lawsuit sparked by a failed Serious Fraud Office (SFO) probe. Businessmen Vincent and Robert Tchenguiz took action against Icelandic bank Kaupthing, accountancy firm Grant Thornton and Jóhannes Jóhannsson, who was a member of Kaupthing’s winding-up committee.

The SFO investigated the brothers in 2011 regarding transactions with Kaupthing, which collapsed in the 2008-11 financial crisis. Both settled with the SFO in 2014 but pursued cases against the remaining defendants.

In judgment last week, Mr Justice Knowles at the Commercial Court said a claim brought by Robert Tchenguiz against Grant Thornton and Jóhannsson that centred on the proceeds of sale should be dismissed.

Tchenguiz sought damages for the loss of a chance to obtain a more favourable result in a claim related to the proceeds from the sale of supermarket Somerfield to the Co-operative Group in 2008.

According to the claim, the Tchenguiz Discretionary Trust, owned by Robert, would receive its share of the proceeds of the sale free of any repayment obligation to Kaupthing.

Tchenguiz said the claim was worth up to £153m, but Knowles dismissed this part of the claim and said it ‘demonstrably has no foundation and should never have been brought’.

The remainder of the claims against Jóhannsson and Grant Thornton continue.

Stephen Paget-Brown, head of dispute resolution at international firm Travers Smith, which represented Kaupthing and Jóhannsson, said the decision ‘represents a further important victory for Jóhannsson. Subject to any attempted appeal, this brings a substantial part of the entirely baseless claim brought by Robert Tchenguiz against Jóhannsson to an end,’ he added.

Last month the Gazette reported that the Court of Appeal’s Civil Division said Vincent Tchenguiz could be granted permission to appeal in his case against Jóhannsson.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Commercial Court dismisses Tchenguiz claim

Solicitor of 25 years agrees to leave profession for altering file

An experienced solicitor and partner at a firm has agreed to leave the profession after attempting to alter a client file to cover a mistake. Heather Redman, formerly a partner at Oxford firm Darbys Solicitors, reached a regulatory settlement agreement with the Solicitors Regulation Authority to take herself off the roll of solicitors.

Redman had advised in connection with a trust under the will of a deceased doctor, who had made it clear he intended for no inheritance tax to be payable upon his death.

The doctor died in May 2013 and the first deed of appointment was signed at the firm on 13 August 2013 and witnessed by Redman’s secretary. As the deed was completed within three months of death, it was read back to the date of death, resulting in an inheritance tax liability.

Redman then arranged with her clients to execute a new deed of appointment dated 30 September 2013, which post-dated the time limit, but it was not possible to withdraw the first deed. Inheritance tax continued to be payable by the clients.

Redman then altered the client file to hide the existence of the first signed deed of appointment. A letter drafted by Redman’s secretary on 14 August was changed by her to say that a new deed would be sent out for signature after the period of three months after the doctor’s death.

There was no record of the original 14 August letter on the paper or electronic file, although metadata from the firm showed the letter was last printed on that date.

The client, the doctor’s widow, confirmed she had copies of both deeds of appointment dated 13 August and 30 September. Redman told the head of department about the error on 16 October and the matter was referred to the SRA.

Redman admitted making a client file alteration in order to conceal her mistake and failing to disclose her error to the firm.

In mitigation, she said she had not understood at the time the importance of what she had done and the finality of the earlier deed of appointment. She said she had made an ‘innocent mistake’ thinking she could rectify the first deed of appointment.

She had not deceived clients but had attempted to alter the file to hide her embarrassment. Once she looked at the issue in more detail, she told the firm what she had done.

Redman, admitted in 1991, agreed to apply to remove herself from the roll within 28 days and not to seek restoration without seeking written approval from the SRA. She also agreed to pay £2,485 costs.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Solicitor of 25 years agrees to leave profession for altering file

LAA denies striking off will create advice desert

The Legal Aid Agency insists a new legal aid advice ‘desert’ will not emerge in Devon following remarks made by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal when it struck a criminal legal aid solicitor off the roll.

Sole practitioner Anthony Robert Dart, who was struck off after watching pornography in his office with a vulnerable female client who had an outstanding bill, was based in Barnstaple.

The Solicitors Regulation Authority confirmed that Dart’s firm, Tony Dart Solicitor & Advocate, closed on 1 November.

The tribunal, in its judgment, said the case 'constituted a personal tragedy’ for Dart 'and quite possibly for the criminal legal aid work in the region in which he practised’. Dart undertook ‘a very significant proportion’ of all criminal legal aid work in the area, the judgment states.

The agency confirmed that Tony Dart Solicitor & Advocate covered the Barnstaple area of Devon. But it assured the Gazette that Barnstaple still had adequate provision.

A spokesperson for the agency said: 'We regularly monitor capacity across criminal legal aid contracts and make sure sufficient advice is available. We are satisfied that there is currently adequate provision in the Barnstaple area and we are working with local providers to reallocate work where necessary.’

Last year the agency had to reopen a tender process for new criminal legal aid contracts in the Devon and Cornwall 1 procurement area, after receiving insufficient bids.

Eight contracts were available but the agency received four bids. Following a meeting with local providers, in which travel requirements were identified as a key barrier to covering the entire procurement area, the area was subdivided into four smaller zones – centred in Exeter, Plymouth, Teignbridge/Torbay and Barnstaple.

The controversial two-tier contracting regime was scrapped in January. A new non-competitive tender process opened in July. 

The agency was unable to comment on whether Dart’s firm had applied for one of the new criminal legal aid contracts due to the ongoing tender process. New crime contracts begin on 1 April.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

LAA denies striking off will create advice desert

Advocacy fees: Society pulls out of working group

The Law Society is to pull out of a Ministry of Justice-sponsored group on reforming advocacy fees because of concerns about restrictions on what it can say, Chancery Lane revealed yesterday.

In a statement, the Society said it has written to the MoJ to inform it 'that it will cease its involvement in the advocates' graduated fee scheme (AGFS) working group because of a concern about a lack of openness and transparency and the inability to share the documentation provided by the MoJ with our expert committee to get their views.'

The scheme, which originated in 1996, provides a mechanism for calculating the payment of advocates who conduct criminal cases in the Crown court. The working group was set up in November 2014 to ensure the scheme remains fit for the future. 

In the letter, Law Society president Robert Bourns said: 'We have been involved in the working group since 2015 but recently restrictions on how information was shared meant it was not possible for us to contribute to the process in a meaningful way. 

'Our working group members had concerns about late changes to proposals, but were not permitted to discuss those concerns on a confidential basis with the Society’s expert committee.

'As we are unable to discuss with our expert committee, the Society feels unable to continue to participate in this working group.

'We will of course engage fully in the public consultation process. We will also continue to participate in the working group on the litigators’ graduated fee scheme, where the current terms of engagement allow us to make a meaningful contribution with appropriate input from our committee.' 

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Advocacy fees: Society pulls out of working group

New effort to free war crimes judge held in Turkey

The international war crimes tribunal has made public increasingly desperate pleas for one of its judges, detained in Turkey.

Judge Aydin Sefa Akay, who is Turkish, was detained following the failed coup against the Turkish government in July. Since the coup attempt 37,000 people have been arrested.

The president of the Residual Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals (MICT), Theodore Meron, alerted the UN General Assembly to the case in early November.

The UN Secretary General then wrote to the government asserting Akay’s diplomatic immunity, but has refused requests to share that correspondence with the tribunal, on grounds of confidentiality. Meron has been denied permission to visit Akay in Turkey.

Now lawyer Peter Robinson has used his position as defence counsel in a case Akay is reviewing to ask that the UN’s own legal team be invited to, and attend, the 17 January 2017 hearing to which the government of Turkey has been invited to explain Akay’s arrest and detention.

Robinson’s application, filed today, said: ‘The [UN] Office of Legal Affairs is best placed to make submissions on the basis for the assertion of diplomatic immunity that may be raised by the Government of Turkey at the hearing.’

Previously, Meron told the General Assembly: ‘Absent clear understanding of his conditions of detention, and a response to my request for authorisation to visit judge Akay, my concern for my judicial colleague’s welfare from a humanitarian standpoint likewise becomes all the stronger.’

Akay is one of five judges hearing a review of judgment on Augustin Ngirabatware, a former Rwandan planning minister. Ngirabatware was sentenced on appeal to 30 years for inciting, instigating, aiding and abetting genocide. Robinson is his defence counsel.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

New effort to free war crimes judge held in Turkey

BTE extension under review with backing from top judge

Experts will look at the expansion of before-the-event insurance in litigation funding next year with the ringing endorsement of one of the country’s top judges. The Civil Justice Council, made up of judges, lawyers and academics, will form a working group in the new year to look at how to increase the application of BTE.

It is expected this group will meet for the first time in late January and the results of its work will feed into fresh thinking on how to ensure as many people as possible have access to justice.

The judiciary has long been positive about BTE insurance: Lord Justice Jackson called for expansion of its use in his civil justice report and recommended it for small businesses and individuals.

In his LawWorks lecture given earlier this month, master of the rolls Sir Terence Etherton said the time has come to follow the examples of other countries, where BTE insurance is the main source of litigation funding.

Citing the German system and ongoing efforts to expand BTE provision in Canada, Etherton said more could be done to ensure it is more widely used in the UK.

‘It is I think unlikely that the current approach to legal aid will be reversed,’ he said. ‘This places an onus on us all to think of ways in which litigation funding can properly be secured for the very many low and middle-income individuals, and small businesses, who are unable to fund litigation properly.’

Etherton said the extension of BTE insurance will come with the potential new regime of fixed recoverable costs, an issue currently being reviewed by Jackson.

The master of the rolls said the success of BTE insurance in Germany is predicated on a ‘symbiotic relationship’ with fixed costs.

‘If we remove the stumbling block by introducing such a costs regime, we may be able to develop an across the board BTE insurance scheme that will work as well as that in Germany,’ he added.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

BTE extension under review with backing from top judge

KWM confirms intention to appoint administrators

The financially pressed European arm of international firm King & Wood Mallesons (KWM) has confirmed that it is to appoint administrators. A statement released today said the move ‘is designed to protect the firm from its creditors and allows it to maintain client service as it continues to explore all available options’.

An announcement had been widely expected since the collapse of takeover talks for the practice, which has debts of £30m, but not until next year. Today’s statement said: ‘The firm’s management team and financial advisers continue to work to ensure the best possible outcome for clients and staff, and this move supports these efforts at a key point for the business.’ 

In the latest senior departure from the firm, Keystone Law announced today that partner Jeremy Schrire, head of both KWM's commerce and technology team and the consumer and retail group, will be joining it in the new year. 

Magic circle firm Allen & Overy revealed earlier this week that it had received 'numerous approaches in recent days from KWM’s current and future trainees'.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

KWM confirms intention to appoint administrators

Creditors lose £1m-plus as former directors buy back fraud-hit firm

Former owners of a south-east law firm have bought back the business through a pre-pack administration and written off seven-figure debts, the Gazette can reveal. A report prepared by administrators states that Foster Mackay (trading as Fosters Law) entered administration earlier this month.

The firm, mainly based in Kent and focused on conveyancing work, had suffered in recent months from the effects of a cyber-attack and lenders pulling the funding.

A statement of administrators’ proposals, prepared by Surrey firm Turpin Barker Armstrong, reveals the business is now being split into two.

Pre-pack sales of the company to The Foster Partnership (TFP) Limited and County Solicitors Limited were completed last month.

Edward and Christina Foster, both shareholders in Fosters, are named as director and shareholder in TFP, along with another director who was previously a director at Fosters. Edward Foster appears again as chief executive and shareholder in County Solicitors, along with five directors who were all directors at the previous incarnation of the firm.

The total sale to TFP is worth £120,000, while County Solicitors has acquired its share of the business for £20,000. The deal allows existing staff to be kept on across Fosters’ 10 offices in Kent and Lincolnshire.

Meanwhile, unsecured creditors are owed more than £1.6m and could receive anything from 13.24p in the pound to nothing.

This group includes HM Revenue & Customs (owed almost £900,000) and Lloyds Bank, owed £10,000. Outstanding redundancy and notice payments come £324,000.

The report states that the deal agreed is the best option for staff and creditors of the firm. ‘The sales to the purchasers have maximised realisations for creditors and avoided substantial employee and leasehold liabilities. Further, the existing practice loans have been novated to the purchasers which has reduced the company’s overall deficiency and will increase the amount received by the company’s creditors.

‘No other offers were received for the business and, in view of the outstanding petition, the only other alternative would have been the liquidation of the company which would have provided no return to creditors and meant all staff would have been made redundant.’

The report recounts that Fosters had been incorporated to take over another solicitor’s practice in 2011 and had grown turnover to almost £4m in 2015/16.

But profits were hit following an attack by online fraudsters in August 2015, resulting in the theft of £1.1m from the client account. Although the company’s professional indemnity insurers covered these losses, the premium rose sharply the following year.

The company had taken out loans but this facility was withdrawn and Fosters was unable to pay its VAT liability to HMRC for the May 2016 quarter.

Savings of £250,000 a year were made through cutting staff and other costs, but the company was unable to trade through its difficulties.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Creditors lose £1m-plus as former directors buy back fraud-hit firm

City firm escapes £2m negligence claim on appeal

The Court of Appeal has overturned a £2m negligence award made against a City firm after ruling that the claimant’s loss was outside its scope of duty.

Lewis Silkin had been ordered to pay compensation in the High Court to former client Timothy Wright after he had missed out on a £10m severance package.

Wright was offered the job of chief executive of Deccan Chargers Sporting Ventures (DCSV) Limited, owner of a cricketing franchise in the newly formed Indian Premier League, in May 2008.

The offer included an initial £300,000 annual salary and 3.5% of the equity of DCSV. Wright, who was advised by Lewis Silkin during contract negotiations, had also negotiated the severance guarantee in the event of his employment being terminated.

But the financial crash ended DCSV's plan to create a major Indian sports venture, and Wright was dismissed in January 2009. After a trial in 2012, His Honour Judge Seymour QC awarded Wright damages of £10m, but since that date he has faced a fruitless struggle through the Indian courts to enforce the judgment. There appears little prospect of recovering any money from Deccan.

In 2014, Wright claimed against Lewis Silkin for breach of contract and professional negligence. He alleged the firm had failed to advise on or consider securing enforcement of Deccan’s obligations. He also alleged that the firm failed to advise on jurisdiction matters to include a clause giving English courts exclusive jurisdiction.

Following a trial, Mr Justice Hamblen dismissed the first allegation but held that Lewis Silkin had breached its duty by not advising about the inclusion of a jurisdiction clause. The court found Wright would have had a 20% chance of recovering his severance, so awarded £2m.

That ruling was overturned this week in the Court of Appeal by Lord Justice Jackson.

Lewis Silkin argued in court that the trial judge had erred as there was no realistic chance of Wright recovering any compensation. This argument was dismissed, but Jackson did accept the plea that Wright’s loss of a 20% chance was too remote and outside the scope of the duty which the firm owed him.

In Wright v Lewis Silkin, Jackson cited Wellesley Partners LLP v Withers LLP, concluded between the High Court and Court of Appeal hearings, which supported Lewis Silkin’s case in terms of the scope of a firm’s duty in employment advice.

Even if Wright had lost his chance of recovering monies through defective contract drafting, Jackson said that loss was not damage of a kind either party in May 2008 would have had in mind. There was no reason to doubt the future solvency of Deccan, the judge added.

Even though Lewis Silkin had not taken the point at trial, Jackson allowed it to pursue the argument that the loss suffered was outside the scope of the duty which it owed.

The judge agreed damages to be paid by Lewis Silkin purely to cover Wright’s litigation costs incurred in enforcing the Deccan judgement, which amount to £40,000.

Following the ruling, Lewis Silkin said it was pleased with the outcome, adding it was ‘gratified that the court had acknowledged that it is not reasonable to expect a solicitors’ firm in these circumstances to protect against the financial collapse of a major commercial organisation years ahead of time’.

The firm added: ‘It is our hope that the conclusions and clarifications set out in this judgment may be of some help to others in similarly complex circumstances, and we look forward to putting this matter behind us.’

Wright called the judgment ‘perverse’ and described the hearing as a re-trial rather than an appeal.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

City firm escapes £2m negligence claim on appeal

Ex-solicitor judge jailed for will forgery

A former wills and probate solicitor who sat as a district judge has been jailed after being found guilty of forging a will in order to get her hands on two properties.

Margaret Hampshire, 69, and her 67-year-old husband Alan pleaded guilty to forging the will of their cousin Martin Blanche so that two properties in his home town of Rolleston, Nottinghamshire, would be transferred to them.

Both were sentenced to six months in prison following a sentencing hearing at Nottingham Crown Court yesterday.

The will stated that Blanche’s estate should be left to Josephine Burroughs, Margaret Hampshire and Blanche’s cousin, for whom Hampshire held power of attorney. 

Hampshire then forged a letter which said Burroughs was happy to transfer the properties to the Hampshires’ daughter.

Hampshire, who was working as a deputy district judge in employment tribunals at the time of the forgery, made a false statement under oath that the will was a true and original document.

Separately, Alan Hampshire also admitted to stealing more than £23,000 from Burroughs during 2012.

According to Nottinghamshire Police, the money was used to pay for renovation works to houses which the Hampshires converted into one cottage.

The Hampshires were arrested in September 2014 and had denied the offences until the early stages of the trial.

Burroughs died on 22 January 2014 before the police investigation started. According to police, there was no evidence that she knew of the fraud.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Ex-solicitor judge jailed for will forgery

Immigration appeal delays ‘shocking’ as backlog reaches 63,000

MPs have said the immigration appeals system is on the verge of a crisis as delays continue to plague the process. Hackney South MP Meg Hillier has told the Gazette that the number of people reporting problems with the immigration appeals process has reached record levels.

Her Labour colleague Keith Vaz, MP for Leicester East, last week told parliament that appeals to bring a spouse into the country now take up to 18 months just to get a tribunal hearing date.

The Gazette reported in October that immigration appeal hearings were being put back by up to nine months and that HM Courts and Tribunals Service had drawn up a list of ‘priority’ cases to ensure the most urgent issues were dealt with.

Statistics published by the Ministry of Justice earlier this month reveal the caseload in the First-tier Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber was 62,900 at the end of September – an increase of 20% compared to the same time in 2015.

The tribunal disposed of 18,000 appeals from July to September this year – down 13% on the same period in 2015.

The mean age of a case at disposal in the FTTIAC was 48 weeks in the third quarter of 2016 – 15 weeks longer than last year.

Hillier, who is chair of the commons Public Accounts Committee, said she was sympathetic to the complexities of the immigration appeals system but the current state of the system was ‘shocking’.

‘The response of the government has been pretty poor and it is having a devastating impact on people’s lives,’ she said. ‘People are coming to my surgery who have not heard when their case will be or have been told to wait months.

‘Rather than being in denial the government needs to get a grip and understand there is an issue.’

The government says the increase in average time taken for cases to be cleared is due to an increased proportion of more complex cases which require more court time.

This also impacts the number of disposals and in turn is reflected in the number of cases outstanding.

Justice minister Sir Oliver Heald was quizzed by Vaz directly on the delays during last week’s evidence session of the House of Commons justice committee.

Vaz said he had a ‘very heavy caseload’ on immigration and suggested the government has a problem with delays in the immigration and asylum system.

He stated there are fewer immigration judges and said tribunal users are not getting a good service at present.

Heald replied: ‘I accept that we need to improve that area. We are working very hard on it, and I am hopeful that speeds will improve.’

Pressed to say whether he knew the current levels of immigration backlogs in the courts, he said there had been work done on this, but he did not have a figure to hand.

In response to a written question this month on immigration appeals, Heald added: ’We do everything we can to avoid unnecessary delay in the Immigration & Asylum Tribunal and we have provided an additional 4,950 tribunal sitting days for this financial year to ensure current case loads do not increase.

‘We are keeping performance under close review and are confident there is sufficient capacity to deal with the number of appeals we expect to receive.’

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Immigration appeal delays ‘shocking’ as backlog reaches 63,000

Top twenty stories of the year

The Law Society of England and Wales

The Law Society represents solicitors in England and Wales. From negotiating with and lobbying the profession’s regulators, government and others, to offering training and advice, we’re here to help, protect and promote solicitors across England and Wales.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Top twenty stories of the year

Immigration appeal delays 'shocking' as backlog reaches 63,000

MPs have said the immigration appeals system is on the verge of a crisis as delays continue to plague the process. Hackney South MP Meg Hillier (pictured) has told the Gazette that the number of people reporting to her problems with the immigration appeals process has reached record levels.

Her Labour colleague Keith Vaz, MP for Leicester East, last week told parliament that appeals to bring a spouse into the country now take up to 18 months just to get a tribunal hearing date.

The Gazette reported in October that immigration appeal hearings were being put back by up to nine months and that HM Courts and Tribunals Service had drawn up a list of ‘priority’ cases to ensure the most urgent issues were dealt with.

Statistics published by the Ministry of Justice earlier this month reveal the caseload in the First-tier Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber was 62,900 at the end of September – an increase of 20% compared to the same time in 2015.

The tribunal disposed of 18,000 appeals from July to September this year – down 13% on the same period in 2015.

The mean age of a case at disposal in the FTTIAC was 48 weeks in the third quarter of 2016 – 15 weeks longer than last year.

Hillier, who is chair of the commons Public Accounts Committee, said she was sympathetic to the complexities of the immigration appeals system but the current state of the system was ‘shocking’.

‘The response of the government has been pretty poor and it is having a devastating impact on people’s lives,’ she said. ‘People are coming to my surgery who have not heard when their case will be or have been told to wait months.

‘Rather than being in denial the government needs to get a grip and understand there is an issue.’

The government says the increase in average time taken for cases to be cleared is due to an increased proportion of more complex cases which require more court time.

This also impacts the number of disposals and in turn is reflected in the number of cases outstanding.

Justice minister Sir Oliver Heald was quizzed by Vaz directly on the delays during last week’s evidence session of the House of Commons justice committee.

Vaz said he had a ‘very heavy caseload’ on immigration and suggested the government has a problem with delays in the immigration and asylum system.

He stated there are fewer immigration judges and said tribunal users are not getting a good service at present.

Heald replied: ‘I accept that we need to improve that area. We are working very hard on it, and I am hopeful that speeds will improve.’

Pressed to say whether he knew the current levels of immigration backlogs in the courts, he said there had been work done on this, but he did not have a figure to hand.

In response to a written question this month on immigration appeals, Heald added: ’We do everything we can to avoid unnecessary delay in the Immigration & Asylum Tribunal and we have provided an additional 4,950 tribunal sitting days for this financial year to ensure current case loads do not increase.

‘We are keeping performance under close review and are confident there is sufficient capacity to deal with the number of appeals we expect to receive.’

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Immigration appeal delays 'shocking' as backlog reaches 63,000

Adviser banned for lying about having first class degree

An education adviser who lied to secure employment with a national firm has been banned from working with the profession. Umar Patel misled his employer, Simpson Millar, about holding a first class law degree in order to obtain his job in October 2013.

He also created false medical certificates to explain his absences and instigated a call to the firm pretending to be his doctor.

Patel worked at the firm, which was trading as Maxwell Gillott in Lancaster, for two years and is not currently involved in legal practice.

A notice from the Solicitors Regulation Authority said Patel’s conduct had been found to be dishonest and he was in breach of two SRA principles.

He was made subject to an order preventing him from working for any regulated firm and ordered to pay a £2,000 fine and costs of £1,350. The order bans him from having any paid connection with a solicitor’s practice and can be lifted only with permission from the SRA.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Adviser banned for lying about having first class degree

Law firms join hands to encourage whistleblowers

A law firm that helped secure the US’s largest payout for an individual whistleblower is encouraging Europeans to come forward and report financial mismanagement.

New York-based Meissner Associates is collaborating with German-based Naegele and City firm Brahams Dutt Badrick French to create the new initiative designed to support people who want to report financial mismanagement. 


The firms are encouraging anyone working with a European or multinational company whose securities trade on US exchanges as well as US companies that do business in Europe, and who suspects dishonesty, to come forward.
 


Stuart Meissner, managing member of Meissner Associates, said the partnership would provide a legal support system for Europeans who ‘may want to come forward as whistleblowers but have not had the confidence that their voices would be heard.’

In August, Meissner represented a former financial executive at biotechnology company Monsanto who was awarded $22.5m (£18m). The award settled allegations that the company misstated its earnings by not properly accounting for millions of dollars paid to distributors.

Naegele and Brahams Dutt Badrick French will advise on local legal issues, including challenges from employers.

Meissner added: ‘Becoming a financial whistleblower is a huge commitment and takes considerable courage and stamina.

‘Our European partners are extremely skilled in local employment law that could come into play. And our firm has the background to provide a fully experienced counsel specific to whistleblower cases covering any possible issue that may arise.’

Arpita Dutt, founding partner at Dutt Badrick French, added: ‘We are pleased to establish this unique international alliance with Meissner and Naegele to ensure that whistleblowers have the best possible access to justice through seamless and confidential counsel with leading advisers in the field of whistleblowing law.’

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Law firms join hands to encourage whistleblowers

Firms join hands to encourage whistleblowers

A law firm that helped secure the US’s largest payout for an individual whistleblower is encouraging Europeans to come forward and report financial mismanagement.

New York-based Meissner Associates is collaborating with German-based Naegele and City firm Brahams Dutt Badrick French to create the new initiative designed to support people who want to report financial mismanagement. 


The firms are encouraging anyone working with a European or multinational company whose securities trade on US exchanges as well as US companies that do business in Europe, and who suspects dishonesty, to come forward.
 


Stuart Meissner, managing member of Meissner Associates, said the partnership would provide a legal support system for Europeans who ‘may want to come forward as whistleblowers but have not had the confidence that their voices would be heard.’

In August, Meissner represented a former financial executive at biotechnology company Monsanto who was awarded $22.5m (£18m). The award settled allegations that the company misstated its earnings by not properly accounting for millions of dollars paid to distributors.

Naegele and Brahams Dutt Badrick French will advise on local legal issues, including challenges from employers.

Meissner added: ‘Becoming a financial whistleblower is a huge commitment and takes considerable courage and stamina.

‘Our European partners are extremely skilled in local employment law that could come into play. And our firm has the background to provide a fully experienced counsel specific to whistleblower cases covering any possible issue that may arise.’

Arpita Dutt, founding partner at Dutt Badrick French, added: ‘We are pleased to establish this unique international alliance with Meissner and Naegele to ensure that whistleblowers have the best possible access to justice through seamless and confidential counsel with leading advisers in the field of whistleblowing law.’

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Firms join hands to encourage whistleblowers

SRA obtains freezing order against legal aid fraud firm

The Solicitors Regulation Authority has obtained a freezing injunction against a Bradford law firm that was shut down following a scandal in which the Legal Aid Agency was defrauded of around £600,000.

The injunction, granted at the High Court, freezes all money held by, on behalf of, or to the order of Mohammed Ayub or Chambers Solicitors, the practice Ayub owned. 

According to the SRA, it includes, but is not limited to, any sums of money paid by third parties in respect of legal services carried out by Ayub or Chambers. The SRA said it had concerns that money due to Chambers is being diverted to other law firms who may not be entitled to it.

Earlier this month, the SRA announced that it had closed down the practice through an intervention.

The SRA has instructed any law firm that was dealing with Chambers and which is now asked to send money to a new firm to check with its intervention agent, John Owen of Gordons LLP.

Ayub, 55, his brother Mohammed Riaz, 48, and immigration supervisor Neil Frew, 48, were found guilty of conspiracy to defraud on a 10-2 majority verdict last month.

Prosecutors said the defendants formed a sham company called Legal Support Services, run by Riaz, to claim inflated disbursements from the LAA for immigration and asylum contract work awarded to Chambers from September 2010 to October 2014.

They will be sentenced in the new year.

(Note: Chambers Solicitors of Bradford is entirely unconnected with Chambers Solicitors of Slough, Berkshire.)

Let's block ads! (Why?)

SRA obtains freezing order against legal aid fraud firm

CJEU's snooping judgment bolsters privilege

Limitations on the interception of legally privileged information have been backed by Europe’s highest court today, in a case brought by two MPs and joined by the Law Society.

In a judgment handed down today in Secretary of State for the Home Department v Watson and Others the Court of Justice of the European Union said the law justified only targeted interception of 'traffic' and location data in order to combat serious crime, not general collection of data, which could include privileged communications.

According to the court: ‘It is open to member states to make provision, as a preventive measure, for targeted retention of that data solely for the purpose of fighting serious crime and is limited to what is strictly necessary’.

The case stemmed from a challenge brought by David Davis MP, now secretary of state for leaving the EU, when he was a backbencher. He was supported by Tom Watson MP, now Labour’s deputy leader.

The MPs’ cause was backed by the Law Society, which was permitted to intervene in the case to express concern about the effect of blanket surveillance legislation on professional privilege, whether deliberately or inadvertently.

Reacting to the judgment, Law Society president Robert Bourns said: ‘Legal professional privilege is a fundamental part of the relationship that solicitors have with their clients, ensuring that our clients can seek legal advice in the confidence that it cannot be disclosed to a third party.

‘Today's ruling strongly supports the need to protect sensitive information such as legally privileged material, which is private information belonging to the client, and to ensure it is accessed only when absolutely necessary, with robust and independent oversight.’

The challenge questioned the legality of bulk interception of call records and online messages.

Davis and Watson won a High Court ruling on the issue in July last year prompting the government to appeal against the decision.

Davis dropped out of the case after joining Theresa May’s government earlier this year.

The initial High Court judgment ordered that section 1 of the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 act be disapplied. The statute has since been replaced by the controversial Investigatory Powers Act, also dubbed a ‘snooper’s charter’ by critics.

In its judgment the court added: ‘The fact that the data is retained without the users of electronic communications services being informed of the fact is likely to cause the persons concerned to feel that their private lives are the subject of constant surveillance. Consequently, only the objective of fighting serious crime is capable of justifying such interference.’

Let's block ads! (Why?)

CJEU's snooping judgment bolsters privilege

Duo jailed for £150-a-claim bribery deal

An insurance worker and claims management company employee have each been jailed for their part in a plot to leak accident victims’ details. Stephen Oates, a former consultant at insurance firm LV=, had agreed a deal to receive £150 every time he passed on information to Aisha Elliott, who worked for Elkador Finance Ltd.

Oates admitted to police that he had been writing personal data on pieces of paper and providing these to Elliott at her home. At one point he was supplying at least seven names a week, receiving more than £1,000 for the information.

Oates, aged 26 from Bournemouth, and Elliott, 23, from Yeovil, were each sentenced yesterday at Bournemouth Crown Court to 12 months in prison.

City of London Police said this is the first successful conviction of its kind under the Bribery Act. The investigation into the leak of confidential data was led by its Insurance Fraud Enforcement Department (IFED).

Detective chief inspector Oliver Little from the IFED said: ‘This is a significant investigation for IFED and the first time that we’ve had a successful conviction involving bribery offences and this result shows that those who commit acts of bribery face spending time in prison.

‘Fraud within the insurance industry is taken extremely seriously – whether it’s members of the public looking to submit false claims for a profit, or indeed members of staff that think it is acceptable to sell on customer data.’

LV= raised suspicions after being contacted by a third party regarding car hire. Checks by LV= found the third party had not repaired this individual’s car and therefore would not be offering a hire car. The party claimed he had been contacted by a company called ‘Select’, which was in possession of his customer details and had offered him a courtesy car.

An audit of LV=’s third-party team uncovered that Oates had been selling customer data.

Little added: ‘The outcome shows how it is possible to work closely with the insurance industry to ensure that criminal cases such as these are thoroughly investigated and that the culprits are brought to justice.

‘This case should act as a warning to all insurers and highlight the fact that there are a number of unscrupulous fraudsters out there who will target insurance staff to try and get customer data and information from them.’

LV= hailed the conviction as a ‘great outcome’ for the company and for the insurance industry overall.

Claims director Martin Milliner added: ‘Fraudsters should take note – you won’t get away with it. At LV= we will always seek to bring offenders to account whether they are an unscrupulous claims management company or a rogue employee.’

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Duo jailed for £150-a-claim bribery deal

CJEU deals blow to snooping powers

Retaining data that is ‘general and indiscriminate’ is illegal under EU law, Europe’s highest court has ruled in a case brought by Brexit secretary David Davis while a backbencher and Labour deputy leader Tom Watson.

In a judgment handed down today, the Court of Justice of the European Union said only targeted interception of 'traffic' and location data in order to combat serious crime is justified, and not general collection of data.

According to the court: ‘It is open to member states to make provision, as a preventive measure, for targeted retention of that data solely for the purpose of fighting serious crime and is limited to what is strictly necessary.’

The case stemmed from a challenge brought by Davis when he was a backbencher. He was supported by Watson, who is now Labour’s deputy leader.

It questioned the legality of bulk interception of call records and online messages.

Davis and Watson won a High Court ruling on the issue in July last year prompting the government to appeal against the decision.

Davis dropped out of the case after being appointed to the government earlier this year.

The judgment ordered that section 1 of the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 be disapplied. DRIPA has since been replaced by the Investigatory Powers Act, which has been dubbed the ‘snooper’s charter’ by critics.

Both The Law Society and civil rights group Liberty backed the MPs’ cause.

In its judgment the court said: ‘The fact that the data is retained without the users of electronic communications services being informed of the fact is likely to cause the persons concerned to feel that their private lives are the subject of constant surveillance.

‘Consequently, only the objective of fighting serious crime is capable of justifying such interference.’

Let's block ads! (Why?)

CJEU deals blow to snooping powers

Market watchdog seeks fresh look at Slater and Gordon records

Australian financial regulators have told Slater and Gordon they want to re-examine documents relating to a previous investigation into the firm.

The listed firm announced to the Australian stock exchange today that it had been served with two notices to serve papers by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC).

The documents relate to an ASIC investigation into the accuracy of financial records and accounts of the company between December 2014 and September 2015. They are to be produced later this month and in early January.

The announcement states that ASIC wants to determine whether those financial records and accounts were ‘deliberately falsified or manipulated’ and whether the company or any of its officers have committed offences.

Slater and Gordon said back in February ASIC had discontinued its inquiries in relation to financial reports for the years ended June 2014 and June 2015.

As part of its announcement, the firm said: ‘ASIC has stated that these notices should not be construed as an indication by ASIC that a contravention of the law has occurred and nor should they be considered as a reflection upon any person or entity.

‘The company will comply with the notices and will also fully cooperate with ASIC so that its investigation may be completed as soon as reasonably practicable.’

The share price of Slater and Gordon once again dipped following this latest announcement, dropping 7.5% to A$0.245 (14p) a share. This is now the lowest trading price since April.

Today’s development marks another setback in a year which has been characterised by problems. Fallout from the £637m acquisition of Quindell’s professional services division has continued to hamper the business, with the company altering its operation in the UK to put an end to continuing losses.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Market watchdog seeks fresh look at Slater and Gordon records

Authorities want new look at Slater and Gordon records

Australian financial regulators have told Slater and Gordon they want to re-examine documents relating to a previous investigation into the firm.

The listed firm announced to the Australian stock exchange today that it had been served with two notices to serve papers by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC).

The documents relate to an ASIC investigation into the accuracy of financial records and accounts of the company between December 2014 and September 2015. They are to be produced later this month and in early January.

The announcement states that ASIC wants to determine whether those financial records and accounts were ‘deliberately falsified or manipulated’ and whether the company or any of its officers have committed offences.

Slater and Gordon said back in February ASIC had discontinued its inquiries in relation to financial reports for the years ended June 2014 and June 2015.

As part of its announcement, the firm said: ‘ASIC has stated that these notices should not be construed as an indication by ASIC that a contravention of the law has occurred and nor should they be considered as a reflection upon any person or entity.

‘The company will comply with the notices and will also fully cooperate with ASIC so that its investigation may be completed as soon as reasonably practicable.’

The share price of Slater and Gordon once again dipped following this latest announcement, dropping 7.5% to A$0.245 a share. This is now the lowest trading price since April.

Today’s development marks another setback in a year which has been characterised by problems. Fallout from the £637m acquisition of Quindell’s professional services division has continued to hamper the business, with the company altering its operation in the UK to put an end to continuing losses.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Authorities want new look at Slater and Gordon records

PI firms say whiplash reforms will finish them off

Dozens of firms have admitted they will have to shut their personal injury department or the whole practice altogether if ministers push ahead with reforms.

A survey of 71 firms by claims management company First4Lawyers has found 29 intend to close down if the small claims limit is increased to £5,000 for all personal injury claims. A further 17 said they would only survive if the increase was limited to RTA claims.

A minority saw an opportunity to advise those with what would be small claims, or felt they were sufficiently diversified to survive the reforms.

The government intends to close its consultation on the change – part of a package of measures including a cap on whiplash damages and scrapping of pre-medical offers – on 6 January.

The First4Lawyers survey is just a small snapshot of the firms that will be affected, but the results give indication of the extent to which the reforms will transform the sector.

Qamar Anwar, managing director of First4Lawyers, said: ‘This is a moment of existential threat for many law firms. The government needs to understand that in its pursuit of a mythical £40 off motor insurance premiums, it is stripping the injured of their rights to justice and causing serious damage to thousands of hard-working professionals who are doing no more or less than upholding the law of the land.’

The survey also found fewer than half of the firms involved plan to respond to the MoJ’s consultation.

Meanwhile, Hull firm Hudgell Solicitors has attacked plans to restrict links between legal services providers and rehabilitation providers. The firm accused the government, which insists the plans will reduce car insurance premiums, of hiding away references to rehabilitation within the consultation document.

The document introduces the idea of issuing vouchers for rehabilitation and restricting claims to victims who have sought medical attention within a specific time. But it makes no reference to the Rehabilitation Code, a voluntary framework drawn up by the entire claims industry.

Amanda Stevens, group head of legal practice at Hudgells, said: ‘All sides of the personal injury industry have co-operated to create a way of delivering rehabilitation that works for the injured person first and foremost, but also the paying party, lawyers and providers.

‘Making the code a compulsory part of the claims process will ensure that best practice is adhered to by all, without the need for the Ministry of Justice to take risks with the recovery of claimants from their injuries.’

Let's block ads! (Why?)

PI firms say whiplash reforms will finish them off

King & Wood Mallesons quiet on trainee futures

International firm King & Wood Mallesons has yet to confirm reports that its junior lawyers are being allowed to complete their training contracts elsewhere, as partners continue to depart.

The European arm of the Asia-focused firm is on the brink of collapse and is set to go into administration next month. The firm has previously declined to comment on reports that a date of 16 January had been set for administration if no rescue emerges. The firm, which is around £30m in debt, has been courting takeover offers.

Reports today claimed that the firm’s trainees are being offered places on other training contracts including at Clifford Chance, Allen & Overy and Linklaters.

The Gazette has approached all three firms for comment. Clifford Chance and Linklaters declined to comment while Allen & Overy has yet to respond.

In a separate development, a six-partner real estate team from the firm joined international outfit DLA Piper while another six partners are set to join Greenberg Traurig. Various partners have already departed in the last few weeks.

KWM operates under a Swiss verein structure which allows firms to operate under the same brand name but as separate legal entities.

The China arm of KWM is currently in talks to buy out offices in Dubai, Germany, Italy and Spain. The China partnership is expected to pick up a significant number of staff.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

King & Wood Mallesons quiet on trainee futures

New terms and conditions for judges will hinder diversity – Society

Government proposals to increase the diversity of the judiciary and improve career prospects could be counter-productive, the Law Society warned today. 

Responding to the Ministry of Justice’s consultation on modernising judicial terms and conditions, Chancery Lane says the proposed terms appear to be ‘more favourable to those who have more secure financial circumstances, who are closer to retirement age or have less care-giving responsibilities’ – exactly the traditional make-up of the judiciary. 

Under the proposals, part-time fee-paid judges would have non-renewable fixed terms. The current terms of four or five years are normally renewed automatically.

When the fixed term expires, fee-paid judges who wish to stay in the judiciary would have to seek a salaried post or apply for another position elsewhere.

However, Chancery Lane said that the proposed enforced turnover of part-time roles, lack of permanency and limited full-time opportunities could 'present a significant impediment' to candidates considering a career in the judiciary.

The Society notes that some officeholders choose a part-time role to allow them to remain in legal practice. The new regime would be less flexible for those with childcare commitments or caring responsibilities.

The proposals might also put off younger candidates, who already find it difficult to negotiate time off to undertake a fee-paid role.

The Society says: ‘For younger candidates who are still establishing their position within a firm, an intimation to leave practice may present too much of a gamble with their long-term career prospects as a practitioner. For the firm there is likely to be little commercial incentive to permit a candidate to undertake a part-time role with the underlying prospect of losing them altogether.’

Moving existing fee-paid judges on to new fixed terms could lead to legal challenges, the Society warned.

Removing guaranteed sitting days in conjunction with fixed tenure would make fee-paid positions ‘significantly uncertain and unattractive’ to prospective candidates.

Removing the right to claim travel costs, in line with salaried officeholders, overlooks the fact that several fee-paid judges do not have a ‘primary base’, the Society says. For instance, Mental Health Tribunal judges sit at more than 900 different hospital and trust venues.

The Society also warned that any discrepancies between the devolved Mental Health Review Tribunal for Wales (which sits outside HM Courts & Tribunals Service’s remit but under the Ministry of Justice for judicial appointments) and any reforms applicable to the Mental Health Tribunal will be open to legal challenge.

The review tribunal also operates entirely on fee-paid judicial resources, with no salaried positions for candidates to progress into.

However the Society agrees with the government’s stated desire to attract candidates from ‘different walks of the legal profession’. Solicitors make up only 28% of the judiciary.

Chancery Lane also suggests that the ministry consider removing the ban on judges returning to practice after they resign or retire.

Meanwhile, the Gazette has learned that the employment tribunal will deliver its verdict on the pensions dispute between judges and the lord chancellor in the new year.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

New terms and conditions for judges will hinder diversity – Society

UK not ‘re-entering EU through back door’, City lawyers tell MPs

Upholding EU directives and accepting guidance from the Court of Justice of the European Union will not be a way of the UK ‘remaining in the EU by the back door’, City lawyers told parliament today. 

Taking questions from the House of Commons justice committee, lawyers and professionals claimed that upholding conventions that ‘recognise the enforceability of judgments’ should be a priority for the government in its Brexit negotiations.

In particular, the UK should uphold the Brussels I framework – which regulates which courts have jurisdiction in civil and commercial disputes and the enforceability of judgments across the EU.

Patrick Robinson, partner at magic circle firm Linklaters, Eva Lein, senior research fellow at the British Institute of International and Comparative Law and Gary Campkin, director, policy and strategy at lobby group TheCityUK, said retaining the convention would be beneficial for the UK’s legal services.

Under the convention, EU defendants should be sued in the courts of their domicile. Parties seeking to enforce a judgment obtained in one EU member state through the courts of another will no longer have to obtain a declaration of enforceability but will only have to present a copy of the judgment and a standard form certificate.

Last month, the Gazette reported that the government’s decision to ratify the Unified Patent Court and unitary patent, which would also accept CJEU supremacy, could prompt a backlash.

Philip Davies, Conservative MP for Shipley in West Yorkshire, said giving authority to the CJEU could be viewed by some as a way of ’not really leaving the EU at all’.

‘People may view this as a bunch of lawyers who want to stay in the EU making sure that happens by some back-door way,’ Davies said, adding: ‘What would you say to my constituents who voted to leave?’

Robinson said it was not a way of ‘staying in the EU’ but that it would be within the UK’s interest to sign up to the agreement and that the CJEU would only explain how the directive works and is interpreted, and would not give it any broader power.

‘I would say [to your constituents] that the UK courts would be implementing a legal system that is right for the country. Just because it shares characteristics with the EU doesn’t mean that UK sovereignty is impaired.’

Lein said the CJEU would not be interfering but would only ‘explain what the concepts [of the convention] mean’.

‘You can tell your constituents that Brussels I protects businesses and individuals and helps them gain access to justice,’ she added.

Campkin said the UK’s legal market was a ‘jewel in the crown’ and reiterated his organisation’s call for the English contractual law to remain the choice for commercial disputes.

In a paper published today TheCityUK said the government should provide ‘urgent and clear articulation’ on areas including enforceability of judgments from UK courts and the importance of English contractual law.

The paper also stresses that English courts should be kept as a hub for businesses that want to resolve international disputes.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

UK not ‘re-entering EU through back door’, City lawyers tell MPs

UK not ‘re-entering EU through back door’, MPs told

Upholding EU directives and accepting guidance from the Court of Justice of the European Union will not be a way of the UK ‘remaining in the EU by the back door’, City lawyers told parliament today. 

Taking questions from the House of Commons justice committee, lawyers and professionals claimed that upholding conventions that ‘recognise the enforceability of judgments’ should be a priority for the government in its Brexit negotiations.

In particular, the UK should uphold the Brussels I framework – which regulates which courts have jurisdiction in civil and commercial disputes and the enforceability of judgments across the EU.

Patrick Robinson, partner at magic circle firm Linklaters, Eva Lein, senior research fellow at the British Institute of International and Comparative Law and Gary Campkin, director, policy and strategy at lobby group TheCityUK, said retaining the convention would be beneficial for the UK’s legal services.

Under the convention, EU defendants should be sued in the courts of their domicile. Parties seeking to enforce a judgment obtained in one EU member state through the courts of another will no longer have to obtain a declaration of enforceability but will only have to present a copy of the judgment and a standard form certificate.

Last month, the Gazette reported that the government’s decision to ratify the Unified Patent Court and unitary patent, which would also accept CJEU supremacy, could prompt a backlash.

Philip Davies, Conservative MP for Shipley in West Yorkshire, said giving authority to the CJEU could be viewed by some as a way of ’not really leaving the EU at all’.

‘People may view this as a bunch of lawyers who want to stay in the EU making sure that happens by some back-door way,’ Davies said, adding: ‘What would you say to my constituents who voted to leave?’

Robinson said it was not a way of ‘staying in the EU’ but that it would be within the UK’s interest to sign up to the agreement and that the CJEU would only explain how the directive works and is interpreted, and would not give it any broader power.

‘I would say [to your constituents] that the UK courts would be implementing a legal system that is right for the country. Just because it shares characteristics with the EU doesn’t mean that UK sovereignty is impaired.’

Lein said the CJEU would not be interfering but would only ‘explain what the concepts [of the convention] mean’.

‘You can tell your constituents that Brussels I protects businesses and individuals and helps them gain access to justice,’ she added.

Campkin said the UK’s legal market was a ‘jewel in the crown’ and reiterated his organisation’s call for the English contractual law to remain the choice for commercial disputes.

In a paper published today TheCityUK said the government should provide ‘urgent and clear articulation’ on areas including enforceability of judgments from UK courts and the importance of English contractual law.

The paper also stresses that English courts should be kept as a hub for businesses that want to resolve international disputes.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

UK not ‘re-entering EU through back door’, MPs told

Conveyancing tax hike on 1 January? - Society demands answers

An apparent ’stealth tax’ hike on housebuying has left conveyancing solicitors facing an uncertain Christmas.

The Law Society is today seeking urgent clarification from HMRC on unconfirmed reports that VAT will be imposed on searches conducted by local councils from 1 January - just six working days away. Chancery Lane warns this will create confusion and delays for both conveyancers and their clients. 

Council searches provide information for buyers and lenders about matters including planning decisions, building regulation consents, highway information, road schemes and public footpaths. They are carried out on the Law Society’s CON29 and CON29O forms, providing standardised questions to make conveyancing searches quicker and more efficient for both local authorities and property buyers.

The reason for addition of VAT is unclear, though it would appear to be intended to level the playing field between councils and private search organisations (PSOs), which already add VAT to searches they are instructed to conduct. A trade body representing PSOs has welcomed the move as a fait accompli, though Chancery Lane’s requests to HMRC for confirmation have gone unanswered.

’A lack of clarity around conveyancing processes and costs helps no one, and we are asking HMRC urgently to explain if, and if so, how and when, these changes will come into effect,’ said Law Society president Robert Bourns. ’A surprise new year’s tax hike will only create confusion and delays in the conveyancing process.  With no public announcement from HMRC about these changes to fees, buyers and their lenders could face delays in getting the information they require. Even small delays in the home buying process can have big consequences, including the possibility of a sale falling through, causing enormous stress for consumers.’

He added: ’Property buyers and their solicitors need certainty.’

The Council of Property Search Organisations said it is ’pleased that the long-running saga about adding VAT to CON29 searches produced by local authorities has finally been resolved’, though its claim that an announcement to that effect has already been made appears unfounded.

James Sherwood Rogers, chairman of CoPSO, said: ’At least from 1 January our members will be able to compete on a level playing field when it comes to the provision of regulated personal searches to their customers. CoPSO has engaged with HMRC for many years seeking resolution to the unacceptable position whereby local authorities have enjoyed a price advantage in offering the CON29 to conveyancers and their clients.

’A level playing field between public and private sectors ultimately can only be to the benefit of homebuyers.’

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Conveyancing tax hike on 1 January? - Society demands answers

Brexit: top global firm seeking to expand – but UK-qualifieds ‘unlikely to be of interest’

The potentially career-limiting consequences of Brexit for ambitious junior City lawyers are writ large in a job advertisement from a top global litigation boutique.

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, which claims to be the largest law firm in the world devoted solely to business litigation and arbitration, is seeking applications from experienced associates qualified at an EU bar to expand its Brussels practice.

‘We are looking for the best, most entrepreneurial and ambitious as we develop a major Brussels top-tier business,’ it says.

‘Perfect English’ in essential, the advertisement states – somewhat ironically in the light of the next rider, which is that ‘UK-only qualifieds [are] unlikely to be of interest unless [the] individual has a clear path to an EU27 qualification’.

The new business is being developed by highly experienced former Shearman & Sterling Brussels antitrust partner Trevor Soames, who joined Quinn as a partner earlier this month.

Barrister and solicitor-advocate Soames, who has been a Brussels resident for over 20 years, sets out his stall in no uncertain terms in his biography on Quinn’s website.

This reads: ‘To proclaim his commitment to the EU and continental Europe and to preserve his ability to work in Brussels post-Brexit, Trevor has applied for Belgian citizenship and has no plans to return to the UK post-Brexit. He was admitted to the Barreau de Bruxelles on 5 December 2016 as a Belgian Avocat. This will guarantee essential legal privilege and advocacy rights before the EU courts.’

Soames is also former co-chair of Howrey’s worldwide antitrust practice and founder of its Brussels office.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Brexit: top global firm seeking to expand – but UK-qualifieds ‘unlikely to be of interest’

Brexit: top global firm seeking to expand - but UK-qualifieds ‘unlikely to be of interest'

The potentially career-limiting consequences of Brexit for ambitious junior City lawyers are writ large in a job advertisement from a top global litigation boutique.

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, which claims to be the largest law firm in the world devoted solely to business litigation and arbitration, is seeking applications from experienced associates qualified at an EU bar to expand its Brussels (pictured) practice.

‘We are looking for the best, most entrepreneurial and ambitious as we develop a major Brussels top-tier business,’ it says.

‘Perfect English’ in essential, the advertisement states – somewhat ironically in the light of the next rider, which is that ‘UK-only qualifieds [are] unlikely to be of interest unless [the] individual has a clear path to an EU27 qualification’.

The new business is being developed by highly experienced former Shearman & Sterling Brussels antitrust partner Trevor Soames, who joined Quinn as a partner earlier this month.

Barrister and solicitor-advocate Soames, who has been a Brussels resident for over 20 years, sets out his stall in no uncertain terms in his biography on Quinn’s website.

This reads: ‘To proclaim his commitment to the EU and continental Europe and to preserve his ability to work in Brussels post-Brexit, Trevor has applied for Belgian citizenship and has no plans to return to the UK post-Brexit. He was admitted to the Barreau de Bruxelles on 5 December 2016 as a Belgian Avocat. This will guarantee essential legal privilege and advocacy rights before the EU courts.’

Soames is also former co-chair of Howrey’s worldwide antitrust practice and founder of its Brussels office.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Brexit: top global firm seeking to expand - but UK-qualifieds ‘unlikely to be of interest'

Magistrate sacked for failing to understand legal adviser’s role

A lay magistrate has been sacked for his conduct during proceedings, which included showing a failure to understand the role of a legal adviser.

In a statement on its website, the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) said David Lynds, who was assigned to the East Kent Local Justice Area, was removed from office following an investigation into his conduct.

The JCIO said that, during a sitting, Lynds failed to understand the role of the legal adviser and failed to communicate with his bench colleagues and the legal adviser ‘in an appropriate manner’.

Court legal advisers are legally trained people who give advice to magistrates.

The statement adds that the lord chancellor and lord chief justice also found that the way Lynds ‘introduced and subsequently withdrew evidence in the course of these proceedings and the inconsistency of his account in this respect’ failed to demonstrate the qualities required of a magistrate.

‘The lord chancellor and lord chief justice considered therefore that Mr Lynds failed to demonstrate the standard expected of a judicial office holder and have therefore removed him from office,’ the JCIO said.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Magistrate sacked for failing to understand legal adviser’s role

Fine for solicitor who accepted cash payments

A solicitor who asked clients to pay fees into his personal bank account and accepted a cash payment that was not paid to the firm where he was working has been fined.

James Liasis asked one client to pay a £40 bill into his personal account and also accepted a £100 cash payment from another client which he failed to account for when he was approached by the firm.

In an agreement published this week, the Solicitors Regulation Authority said Liasis was fined £2,000 and had agreed to pay £4,500 in costs.

Liasis, now 29, was working for JML Law Limited at the time of the offences, which took place between 2013 and 2014.

He previously worked as a consultant at Faradays Solicitors in London. Faradays then entered into an agreement with JML Law allowing it to provide legal services to the firm. Under the agreement, Liasis was responsible for paying his own tax and national insurance. His pay was 50% of net profit costs received by Faradays from work he had carried out at JML Law.

Liasis said he never benefited from the money as the £100 payment was paid back and the £40 payment was never received.

According to the SRA agreement: ‘If any terms of this agreement are not complied with, or if Liasis acts inconsistently in any way with this agreement, Liasis accepts that all issues may be referred back to the SRA for reconsideration.’

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Fine for solicitor who accepted cash payments

Insurers threaten judicial review of damages discount decision

Insurers have mounted a legal challenge to lord chancellor Liz Truss’s decision to review the rate at which personal injury awards are discounted. The Ministry of Justice confirmed earlier this month that it would publish the outcome of its review of the rate by the end of January 2017.

The rate, used to calculate the level of deduction from damages payments based on the claimants’ assumed interest earnings, has long been contested by all sides of the personal injury sector.

The Association of British Insurers (ABI) has now said it will judicially review the decision to review the rate. The insurers’ representative wants a proper consultation to be completed and for the government to change its methodology for calculating the discount before proceeding.

The challenge is an indication that insurers expect the discount rate to fall from its current level of 2.5% to reflect current interest rates.

Huw Evans, director general of the ABI, said: ‘Despite two public consultations over three years ago and convening an expert panel, the Ministry of Justice has not yet shared any findings. Instead they are now trying to rush out a new rate for the first time in 15 years at a time of great uncertainty in the investment markets.

‘To proceed in these circumstances is reckless and wrong. Insurers are open to a proper dialogue on how to reform the system but this is not the way to do it.’

The ABI says the UK is unique in basing its discount rate on the yields from index-linked government gilts.

Insurers say the principle of full compensation is no longer served by this link, as long-term investment behaviour of compensated claimants is so different in practice.

The MoJ consulted in 2012 on the methodology that should be adopted but the ABI says the department has breached Cabinet Office guidelines by not responding to this consultation.

It also points out that the MoJ has not published a report made in January this year following a review of consultation responses by a panel of experts.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Insurers threaten judicial review of damages discount decision

Preserve UK’s legal reputation, City group urges government

Professional services lobby group TheCityUK has urged the government to ensure the continuity and competitiveness of the UK’s legal sector after Brexit. A paper released today called The impact of Brexit on the UK-based legal services sector calls for ‘urgent and clear articulation’ on areas including enforceability of judgments from UK courts and the importance of English contractual law.

The paper also stresses that English courts should be kept as a hub for businesses that want to resolve international disputes.

Miles Celic, chief executive of TheCityUK, said: ‘It is vital that the key challenges and opportunities for the sector are addressed in the Brexit negotiations and that its competitiveness is maintained and enhanced. The best Brexit deal will be one which is mutually beneficial to the UK, the EU and globally and which allows for a clear and predictable shift from current business conditions to whatever new arrangement is agreed.’



Last week, the Bar Council echoed fears regarding contract law in its Brexit Papers – a working paper that examines the legal issues surrounding Brexit.

Bar Council chair Chantal-Aimée Doerries said it ‘rightly highlights the value to the economy of the English and Welsh courts and UK legal services’.

‘We must not take for granted the high regard in which our courts and judges are held around the world, and the role this plays in our economic success,’ she added.

TheCityUK’s paper also identifies recommendations for the government to consider to optimise the future legal framework including:

• Providing an urgent and clear articulation of how the future position of the UK in cross-border civil justice within the EU will be addressed;
• Continuing to allow firms to access legal talent and skills on similar terms to how they do now;
• Continuing engagement with sector-specific industry bodies to assess and understand knock-on impacts of Brexit on the legal sector.

The Law Society has also called on the government to ensure recognition and enforcement of judgments, collaboration on policing and security, and that UK lawyers are able to practise and base themselves in EU member states.

Chief executive Catherine Dixon has also been appointed to London Mayor Sadiq Khan’s Brexit Expert Advisory Group, a team of academics, investors and business leaders set up to provide advise on the challenges and opportunities of leaving the EU.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Preserve UK’s legal reputation, City group urges government