Prosecution was 'political game' to attack human rights - Day

jeudi 22 juin 2017

Leigh Day senior partner Martyn Day has suggested his prosecution by the Solicitors Regulation Authority was part of a 'bigger picture of a political game' aimed at muzzling human rights defenders.

Martyn day

Day, along with his firm and solicitors Sapna Malik and Anna Crowther, was cleared earlier this month of 19 allegations brought by the SRA. The tribunal was the longest of its kind, lasting seven weeks, and is estimated to have cost at least £9m.

During the hearing, correspondence between the SRA and the government was disclosed, including letters exchanged between defence secretary Sir Michael Fallon and SRA's chief executive. Day says the extent to which the government influenced the prosecution was unclear, but he maintains there was a 'very strong political element' to the case.

'We always felt very strongly that the Ministry of Defence in particular, but all the way up to the prime minister, him and then herself, they had a very big political battle to fight attacking the Human Rights Act, attacking human rights lawyers and we were the right people at the right time as far as they were concerned, said Day. 'This all became a part of that bigger picture of a political game.'

Day, in his first interview since the verdict, admitted that the firm made mistakes in failing to spot the significance of documents, and he stressed it will be more cautious in future, without affecting the nature of the work it does. The firm will also review the training and guidance given to lawyers in relation to document handling.

He thanked colleagues in the profession for their messages of goodwill and said there was a sense of the wider importance of the case.

'I have had messages not just from human rights lawyers in the UK but abroad: people saying they would be really worried that the atmosphere is changing about lawyers operating in the human rights field internationally and that they have been delighted that we have been able to successfully bat off these allegations,' the 60-year-old added. 'I think it has been seen as being a major case not just in this country but internationally.'

The SRA has said it will consider whether to appeal the tribunal decision once the written judgment is published in August. The issue of costs will also be considered after that date.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Prosecution was 'political game' to attack human rights - Day

All aboard: firms win coveted spots on £50m rail panel

mercredi 21 juin 2017

Eight firms have secured coveted spots on the government's £50m panel contract for specialist advice on modernisation projects including Crossrail and High Speed 2. 

Addleshaw Goddard, Ashurst, DLA Piper UK and Eversheds Sutherland (International) have been appointed as tier 1 suppliers. The tier's work will involve advice on major, long term transactions such as rail franchise competitions and other highly complex projects where the supplier 'will need to devote considerable resource' to the project over a multiyear period of time or where the instructions relate to particularly complex issues, the tender document states.

Linklaters, Norton Rose Fulbright, Osborne Clarke and Stephenson Harwood have been appointed as tier 2 suppliers. Tier 2 work will involve advice on less complex and resource intensive transactions such as instructions relating to less complex contractual changes.

Paul Hirst, head of Addleshaw Goddard's head of transport, said the firm's appointment was a 'huge accolade for our rail and wider transport team. We're looking forward to continuing to work closely with the department on a fascinating pipeline of rail infrastructure and rolling stock projects, and the ongoing programme of franchise competitions'.

The three-year contract has an optional 12-month extension. Crown Commercial Service says the deal is expected to save 0.75% over three years. Rates have been assessed as part of the tender process. Hourly rates include an upfront discount. Daily and monthly rates are also available at reduced costs.

The panel was developed to address specific requirements for the Department for Transport. It is one of four panels replacing an existing legal services framework.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

All aboard: firms win coveted spots on £50m rail panel

Queen's speech: Lidington says prison legislation not needed

In his first public statement since taking up the post of justice secretary, David Lidington has tried to head off concern about the dropping of prison reform from the government's legislative programme. The Ministry of Justice published an open letter today claiming that ‘essential’ changes already under way to make prisons places of ‘safety and reform’.

‘Prisons have been going through a particularly turbulent time and we need to create calm and ordered environments for that effective rehabilitation,’ Lidington stated. He said it is his priority to reform offenders and support ex-offenders – including by offering education, training and support to help prisoners find employment when they leave.

Prison reform was a key element of the Prisons and Courts Bill, abandoned in the run up to the general election. Peter Clarke, HM chief inspector of prisons, said the bill enjoyed broad parliamentary support and had made real progress. Its absence from today's Queen’s speech was a ’missed opportunity’, Clarke said, adding: ’We will continue to report the harsh reality of what we find in our prisons – all too many of which are dangerous for prisoners and staff alike.’

David Lidington

Peter Dawson, director of the Prison Reform Trust, said: ’The decision puts even more pressure on the new justice secretary [David Lidington] to find ways to stop our chronic overuse of prison so that this hardest pressed of public services can start to repair the damage his predecessors have inflicted upon it.’

Lidington said the Ministry of Justice is on course to recruit 2,500 prison officers by December 2018 and that up to 10,000 new prison places would be created through a £1.3 billion investment. He added that testing for psychoactive substances had been introduced across the estate and that more than 300 dogs had been trained to detect banned substances. Meanwhile the MoJ is working with the police to catch and convict criminals who use drones to smuggle contraband into prisons and working with mobile operators to tackle illicit use of phones.

‘We know where the problems lie in our prisons, and we know what is needed to fix them. We are continuing with, and building on, these reforms to ensure prisons are safe and secure and are able to transform the lives of those sent to custody by our courts,’ Lidington wrote.

But Dawson said the money earmarked for new prisons should be spent ‘on measures that would make them unnecessary’.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Queen's speech: Lidington says prison legislation not needed

Queen's speech: Society hails 'positive' elements

Today’s Queen’s speech has set out a comprehensive agenda with much that will be received positively by the solicitor profession, the Law Society of England and Wales said.

Prominent in the government’s agenda is a package of measures to make the legal changes needed for Brexit.

’Unravelling and redefining ties and laws made over the past 40 years, while providing as much certainty to individuals and businesses as is possible is a task of real complexity,’ said Robert Bourns, Law Society president. ’The government’s focus on providing this certainty is welcomed, and we hope the series of bills announced today will allow parliament to work through these issues carefully, and give them the scrutiny they deserve.’

The prominence given to a renewed focus on protecting the rights of the most vulnerable was also welcomed. 'Our laws must be accessible to the most vulnerable in our society, and it was pleasing to see that the government will give this attention in the coming parliamentary session,’ said Bourns. 'A significant focus on combating modern slavery, both at home and abroad; law changes to protect victims of domestic violence; and updating our employment law to reflect modern working practices are all important steps which can help those who need it most.’

He added: ’The UK is a world leader in promoting human rights, and the government’s commitment actively to enhance this commitment and ensure our rights are there for all of us is to be applauded.’

Government plans to continue with reforms to modernise the court system and reduce personal injury claims met with a more guarded response.

Robert bourns

’Continued progress towards the careful modernisation of our courts system is to be welcomed, although care will need to be taken to ensure that justice is not diluted as it is modernised,’ said Bourns.

However, the Society was disappointed at the government’s decision to revive ‘misguided’ reforms to whiplash injury claims. Bourns said: ’It will be a clear injustice if the government persists with denying essential legal advice to those injured through no fault of their own - if the government is truly committed to targeting fraudulent claims, it should do just that.’

He concluded: ’The Law Society looks forward to working with the government to represent the views and offer the expertise of the solicitor profession as it advance an ambitious agenda for the next two years.’

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Queen's speech: Society hails 'positive' elements

Queen's speech: Society hails 'positive element'

Today’s Queen’s speech has set out a comprehensive agenda with much that will be received positively by the solicitor profession, the Law Society of England and Wales said.

Prominent in the government’s agenda is a package of measures to make the legal changes needed for Brexit.

’Unravelling and redefining ties and laws made over the past 40 years, while providing as much certainty to individuals and businesses as is possible is a task of real complexity,’ said Robert Bourns, Law Society president. ’The government’s focus on providing this certainty is welcomed, and we hope the series of bills announced today will allow parliament to work through these issues carefully, and give them the scrutiny they deserve.’

The prominence given to a renewed focus on protecting the rights of the most vulnerable was also welcomed. 'Our laws must be accessible to the most vulnerable in our society, and it was pleasing to see that the government will give this attention in the coming parliamentary session,’ said Bourns. 'A significant focus on combating modern slavery, both at home and abroad; law changes to protect victims of domestic violence; and updating our employment law to reflect modern working practices are all important steps which can help those who need it most.’

He added: ’The UK is a world leader in promoting human rights, and the government’s commitment actively to enhance this commitment and ensure our rights are there for all of us is to be applauded.’

Government plans to continue with reforms to modernise the court system and reduce personal injury claims met with a more guarded response.

Robert bourns

’Continued progress towards the careful modernisation of our courts system is to be welcomed, although care will need to be taken to ensure that justice is not diluted as it is modernised,’ said Bourns.

However, the Society was disappointed at the government’s decision to revive ‘misguided’ reforms to whiplash injury claims. Bourns said: ’It will be a clear injustice if the government persists with denying essential legal advice to those injured through no fault of their own - if the government is truly committed to targeting fraudulent claims, it should do just that.’

He concluded: ’The Law Society looks forward to working with the government to represent the views and offer the expertise of the solicitor profession as it advance an ambitious agenda for the next two years.’

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Queen's speech: Society hails 'positive element'

Costs: Appeal court backs Merrix stance on budget status

An approved budget cannot be re-opened by a costs judge at detailed assessment unless there is ‘good reason’ to do so, the Court of Appeal held today in a much-awaited ruling in Harrison v University Hospitals Coventry & Warwickshire NHS Trust.

In a unanimous ruling, the Court of Appeal expressly backed the reasoning of Carr J in the Merrix case on the same issue, which received a mixed response from the legal and costs professions in February.

Lord Justice Davis said the ‘good reason’ provision was a valuable safeguard, and ‘goes a considerable way to meeting [barrister for the paying party] Mr Hutton’s doom-laden predictions of detailed assessments becoming mere rubber stamps of case management orders, and of injustice for paying parties.’

Mr Justice Davis

The judge added that it was better not to give ‘generalised’ guidance as to what would amount to good reason, as this could ‘safely’ be left to costs judges in individual cases.

On a second point, the Court of Appeal adopted a different approach in relation to costs that were already incurred before the date of the budget. It said incurred costs should be subject to detailed assessment in the normal way, without an extra requirement of good reason before a costs judge can depart from the amount put forward at the relevant costs management hearing.

Davis LJ said: ‘The costs incurred before the date of the budget were never agreed in this case. Nor were they ever “approved” by the costs management order… Accordingly such incurred costs are to be the subject of detailed assessment in the usual way, without any added requirement of “good reason” for departure from the approved budget.’

Costs expert Professor Dominic Regan told the Gazette it was no surprise that the ‘elegant’ judgment of Carr J in Merrix was unanimously affirmed. ‘But the paying party can take satisfaction from the fact that they have the right to a detailed assessment of costs already incurred,’ he said. Regan added: ‘The timing of this ruling is perfect, in that it provides Sir Rupert Jackson with an opportunity to comment on it, if he wishes, in his report [on the extension of fixed recoverable costs] next month.’

Lady Justice Black and Sir Terence Etherton MR agreed with the judgment of Davis LJ.

Kevin Latham of King’s Chambers acted for the claimant Jacqueline Harrison; Alexander Hutton QC of Hailsham Chambers and Roger Mallalieu of 4 New Square acted for the defendant.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Costs: Appeal court backs Merrix stance on budget status

Court of Appeal backs Merrix stance on budget status

An approved budget cannot be re-opened by a costs judge at detailed assessment unless there is ‘good reason’ to do so, the Court of Appeal held today in a much-awaited ruling in Harrison v University Hospitals Coventry & Warwickshire NHS Trust.

In a unanimous ruling, the Court of Appeal expressly backed the reasoning of Carr J in the Merrix case on the same issue, which received a mixed response from the legal and costs professions in February.

Lord Justice Davis said the ‘good reason’ provision was a valuable safeguard, and ‘goes a considerable way to meeting [barrister for the paying party] Mr Hutton’s doom-laden predictions of detailed assessments becoming mere rubber stamps of case management orders, and of injustice for paying parties.’

Mr Justice Davis

The judge added that it was better not to give ‘generalised’ guidance as to what would amount to good reason, as this could ‘safely’ be left to costs judges in individual cases.

On a second point, the Court of Appeal adopted a different approach in relation to costs that were already incurred before the date of the budget. It said incurred costs should be subject to detailed assessment in the normal way, without an extra requirement of good reason before a costs judge can depart from the amount put forward at the relevant costs management hearing.

Davis LJ said: ‘The costs incurred before the date of the budget were never agreed in this case. Nor were they ever “approved” by the costs management order… Accordingly such incurred costs are to be the subject of detailed assessment in the usual way, without any added requirement of “good reason” for departure from the approved budget.’

Costs expert Professor Dominic Regan told the Gazette it was no surprise that the ‘elegant’ judgment of Carr J in Merrix was unanimously affirmed. ‘But the paying party can take satisfaction from the fact that they have the right to a detailed assessment of costs already incurred,’ he said. Regan added: ‘The timing of this ruling is perfect, in that it provides Sir Rupert Jackson with an opportunity to comment on it, if he wishes, in his report [on the extension of fixed recoverable costs] next month.’

Lady Justice Black and Sir Terence Etherton MR agreed with the judgment of Davis LJ.

Kevin Latham of King’s Chambers acted for the claimant Jacqueline Harrison; Alexander Hutton QC of Hailsham Chambers and Roger Mallalieu of 4 New Square acted for the defendant.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Court of Appeal backs Merrix stance on budget status

'Don't waste money on Brexit advice right now,' in-house lawyers told

Spending money on external legal advice on Brexit-related issues may be a waste of money right now, the head of legal at an insurance multinational suggested today. 

In the week that formal negotiations between the UK and the EU began, Donna Harris, director of legal services at Aviva, told the Law Society In-House Division conference that the insurance company is currently not spending a lot of money on external lawyers 'for the reason you're probably going to get a lot of theory from them'.

Responding to a question from the floor on where organisations are going to for advice, she said: 'I cannot see anyone in the position to give you advice that's worth paying a lot of money for.'

Aviva, which is currently reviewing its work processes, is engaging with other insurers and asset managers, which has been helpful, Harris said.

Aviva's first 'Brexit shock' arrived in July last year, when the company had to temporarily suspend dealing in two property funds as a direct result of the unexpected outcome of the EU referendum, Harris said.

Aviva logo

'Those who know the property market know it was looking a bit wobbly in early 2016. As a result of that referendum outcome, overnight the property market was just paralysed,' she said. The reaction, she recalled, included lawyers withdrawing from deals they provisionally agreed to. Valuations also became problematic.

'The first lesson of Brexit is we were not quite as ready for that scenario as perhaps we should have been,' Harris said. 'Like many people in business we thought the vote might go the other way. Although we did a bit of contingency planning, it was not at the level of detail, not ready for that immediate shock to the system.'

Aviva reopened the two funds last December.

Highlighting the extent of challenges Brexit poses for the in-house sector, an audience member said his sector was very much regulated by EU directives. 'It's not possible to put those details into UK law in a matter of a couple of years. It's a decade-long exercise,' he warned.

Another audience member highlighted procurement challenges. He said: 'Many contractual arrangements in local government run for at least four years or longer. How do you address that in this period of uncertainty? Some local authorities are deciding not to go to market, and adopt an approach of 'wait and see' as far as goods and services, and procurement are concerned.'

Let's block ads! (Why?)

'Don't waste money on Brexit advice right now,' in-house lawyers told

Queen's speech: Labour condemns whiplash plans

The personal injury sector faced familiar feelings of dread today as the government refused to pause on personal injury reforms. Measures proposed in today's Queen's speech are apparently identical to those in the Prisons and Courts Bill which ran out of time before the general election. 

A new tariff system for whiplash injuries lasting up to two years - likely to result in greatly reduced compensation payments - returns, as does a ban on pre-medical offers.

The language ascribed to whiplash claims - the background notes to the speech describe a 'rampant compensation culture' - is also identical to that used by former lord chancellor Liz Truss when she introduced the bill in February.

The key difference now is that reforms will be introduced through a more focused Civil Liability Bill, which could mean the legislation takes less time to pass. The estimated saving on motor insurance premiums is also cut, from £50 to £35.

The bill could still face opposition in parliament. Labour immediately condemned the plans, although it is unclear whether the party will vote against the legislation.

Rburgon

Shadow justice secretary Richard Burgon said: 'The government had an opportunity to ditch their ill-considered whiplash reforms. There is no evidence of any "compensation culture". History shows that insurers have not passed on savings to motorists. In the last parliament the saving to motorists was £50 and now it’s £35. The Tories are helping their insurance industry friends over helping ordinary people get justice.’

Brett Dixon, the president of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, said the government 'continues to fire at the wrong target’ and said insurers' profits have risen since the last major civil justice reforms in 2013.

He added: 'The government tries to appease motorists but, in reality, their right to redress when they are injured will be diminished in exchange for a promise of lower premiums which will not be kept.'

Simon Stanfield, chair of the Motor Accident Solicitors Society, said the society was disappointed that the new ministerial team at the Ministry of Justice 'have not taken the time to consider the implications of these proposals and work constructively to address some of the practical issues that the proposed legislation throws up'.

'These reforms are unfair and fundamentally flawed in their rationale, and MASS will continue to make this case, whilst seeking to mitigate some of the worst consequences of the reforms.'

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Queen's speech: Labour condemns whiplash plans

Law firms dominate social mobility ranking

International firm Berwin Leighton Paisner has been ranked inside the top 10 in a list of businesses that have made the biggest strides to improving social mobility.

Published today, the Social Mobility Employer Index ranks UK employers for the first time on actions taken to provide opportunities for people of all backgrounds.

The index is a jointly run by the the Social Mobility Foundation and the Social Mobility Commission, in partnership with the City of London Corporation.

BLP, the highest ranked law firm, was placed eighth. Other City firms including Baker McKenzie, Pinsent Masons, Burges Salmon, Clifford Chance and Linklaters also appear in the top 20.

In total, 16 law firms make the top 50, as well as the Honourable Society for the Inner Temple.

A BLP spokesperson said the firm has a dedicated social inclusion group committed to increasing opportunities. In the last year the firm has ran a work experience programme for 16-17 year-olds from non-advantaged backgrounds in London and held an apprenticeship scheme in Manchester.

Tim Smith, partner at the firm and leader of the social inclusion group, said: ‘Social mobility is an important strand of our drive to become a fully inclusive workplace. Diverse teams are more innovative and perform better.’

Tim Smith

Law firms in the top 30 include international firms Hogan Lovells, Herbert Smith Freehills and Simmons & Simmons.

Nicholas Cheffings, chair of Hogan Lovells, which ranked 26th, said: ‘We continually stress the importance of this work internally and encourage our people to push hiring boundaries, making Hogan Lovells an inclusive environment where our people can bring their whole selves and their different experiences to work.’

Catherine McGuinness, policy chairman for the City of London Corporation, said the firms included are ‘leading the way’ in removing the barriers holding back the best and brightest candidates.

‘More companies are making progress on social mobility, casting the net wider in the search for talent and recognising that a level playing field is in the best interests for all businesses,’ she added.

Robert Bourns, President of the Law Society, said it was inspiring to see solicitor firms make up nearly a third of the top 50.

'As solicitors we uphold the law, including important equality legislation. The inclusion of such a significant number of law firms in the index reflects how many are leading by example. I would urge all law firms to strengthen their businesses and our society by considering how they can contribute to greater social mobility.

He added: 'Our vision is of a profession in which all solicitors - present and aspiring - can be confident that talent, ability and application are rewarded irrespective of background, gender or ethnicity.'

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Law firms dominate social mobility ranking

'Good solicitor working incredibly hard' fined £5k for disbursement errors

A solicitor 'working incredibly hard to make a meagre living in a difficult environment' has been fined £5,000 for failing properly to manage payments for professional disbursements. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal said Rosalind Diana Kathleen Dunning, a partner at Dunning & Co in London, was a 'good solicitor trying to cope unsuccessfully' with changes made by the Legal Aid Agency.

Dunning, admitted in 1980, received money in respect of professional disbursements from the agency between 4 January 2011 and 20 May 2015 totalling £35,236.19. She retained those sums in office account and failed to either pay the professional disbursement or pay those sums into client account within 14 days of receipt.

She also admitted delays in refunding money that was overpaid to the firm in respect of costs totalling £23,826.60 and failing to remedy breaches of the SRA Accounts Rules promptly on discovery.

She also allowed bookkeeping errors to occur and carried out a write-off exercise on debit and credit balances from the office account, which included at least nine matter credit balances which were monies in respect of unpaid professional disbursements.

She failed to report material failures required under her obligations as compliance officer for legal practice, and finance and administration.

As soon as Dunning became aware of the breaches, she immediately made good all losses, including some disbursements missed by the agency, which she had picked up herself, the judgment stated.

Dunning 'had been working incredibly hard for long hours in order to make a meagre living in a difficult and challenging environment involving publicly funded work', the tribunal acknowledged. It added that her lack of integrity related to only a narrow aspect of her practice over a limited period of time. 'It had been in the context of a very heavy professional workload for sometimes vulnerable clients, which had led her to fail to devote the time and attention to the management of her practice which was necessary to ensure full compliance with the professional rules and her obligations to the LAA,' the judgment stated. 

Dunning was also ordered to pay £13,000 in costs.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

'Good solicitor working incredibly hard' fined £5k for disbursement errors

BLP best law firm for social mobility

International firm Berwin Leighton Paisner has been ranked inside the top 10 in a list of businesses that have made the biggest strides to improving social mobility.

Published today, the Social Mobility Employer Index ranks UK employers for the first time on actions taken to provide opportunities for people of all backgrounds.

The index is a jointly run by the the Social Mobility Foundation and the Social Mobility Commission, in partnership with the City of London Corporation.

BLP, the highest ranked law firm, was placed eighth. Other City firms including Baker McKenzie, Pinsent Masons, Burges Salmon, Clifford Chance and Linklaters also appear in the top 20.

In total, 16 law firms make the top 50, as well as the Honourable Society for the Inner Temple.

A BLP spokesperson said the firm has a dedicated social inclusion group committed to increasing opportunities. In the last year the firm has ran a work experience programme for 16-17 year-olds from non-advantaged backgrounds in London and held an apprenticeship scheme in Manchester.

Tim Smith, partner at the firm and leader of the social inclusion group, said: ‘Social mobility is an important strand of our drive to become a fully inclusive workplace. Diverse teams are more innovative and perform better.’

Tim Smith

Law firms in the top 30 include international firms Hogan Lovells, Herbert Smith Freehills and Simmons & Simmons.

Nicholas Cheffings, chair of Hogan Lovells, which ranked 26th, said: ‘We continually stress the importance of this work internally and encourage our people to push hiring boundaries, making Hogan Lovells an inclusive environment where our people can bring their whole selves and their different experiences to work.’

Catherine McGuinness, policy chairman for the City of London Corporation, said the firms included are ‘leading the way’ in removing the barriers holding back the best and brightest candidates.

‘More companies are making progress on social mobility, casting the net wider in the search for talent and recognising that a level playing field is in the best interests for all businesses,’ she added.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

BLP best law firm for social mobility

Legal aid solicitor 'working incredibly hard' fined £5k over disbursement errors

A solicitor 'working incredibly hard for long hours in order to make a meagre living in a difficult and challenging environment' has been fined £5,000 over failures to manage payments for professional disbursements. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal said Rosalind Diana Kathleen Dunning, a partner at Dunning & Co in London, was a 'good solicitor trying to cope unsuccessfully' with changes made by the agency.

The tribunal's judgment states that Dunning, admitted in 1980, received money in respect of professional disbursements from the agency between 4 January 2011 and 20 May 2015 totalling £35,236.19, retained those sums in office account, and failed to either pay the professional disbursement or pay those sums into client account within 14 days of receipt.

She also admitted delays in refunding money that was overpaid to the firm in respect of costs totalling £23,826.60 and failing to remedy breaches of the SRA Accounts Rules promptly on discovery.

She also allowed bookkeeping errors to occur and carried out a write-off exercise on debit and credit balances from the office account, which included at least nine matter credit balances which were monies in respect of unpaid professional disbursements.

She failed to report material failures required under her obligations as compliance officer for legal practice, and finance and administration.

As soon as Dunning became aware of the breaches, she immediately made good all losses, including some disbursements missed by the agency, which she had picked up herself, the judgment stated.

Dunning 'had been working incredibly hard for long hours in order to make a meagre living in a difficult and challenging environment involving publicly funded work', the tribunal recognised, adding that her lack of integrity related to only a narrow aspect of her practice over a limited period of time. 'It had been in the context of a very heavy professional workload for sometimes vulnerable clients, which had led her to fail to devote the time and attention to the management of her practice which was necessary to ensure full compliance with the professional rules and her obligations to the LAA,' the judgment stated. 

Dunning was also ordered to pay £13,000 in costs.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Legal aid solicitor 'working incredibly hard' fined £5k over disbursement errors

IT hold-ups delay electronic bill of costs to 2018

The mandatory use of a new electronic bill of costs is being delayed until next year, it has emerged.

The Gazette understands the Civil Procedure Rule Committee has put back its October 2017 plan and is instead aiming to make the new bill compulsory from April 2018.

The deferment was confirmed at this month’s meeting of the committee and is due to more time being needed to ensure the IT in county courts is in place to handle bills filed electronically.

Last month it was reported that the committee was planning to meet HM Courts and Tribunals Service to discuss implementation, with changes to be included in the next scheduled update of the CPR next month.

Lawyers who have taken part in the voluntary pilot since 2015 have complained the new bill requires lawyers to spend longer recording their time and preparing the document.

The Association of Costs Lawyers has said the new bill can offer ‘significant’ benefits to parties, judges and lawyers alike, although it acknowledged there has been little data collected about the success of the pilot.

The pilot scheme for the new bill of costs is currently due to expire on 30 September. The scheme provides for the use of a new format of costs bill in the detailed assessment procedure.

The idea had been promoted by Lord Justice Jackson in his final report on civil justice, but lawyers have warned against the bill becoming mandatory without a full consultation and a full review of costs budgeting, introduced in 2013.

In a report to the CPR committee in May, it was noted that the pilot scheme had shown that using a spreadsheet for costs recording ‘makes the figures transparent to the paying party and the costs judge’.

Even last month, the sub-committee formed to discuss the matter was recommending the new bill should be compulsory from 1 October 2017.

It said the reason the new bills have not been used is firms are uncertain over their implementation and want to avoid wasting time and resources.

The alternative, to continue the voluntary pilot, was felt to be ‘futile’ as few extra bills would emerge in the next six to 12 months.

The committee said court hearing centres would need systems to receive and store electronic bills electronically, transmit them to the appropriate district judge and return them electronically to the parties at the end of the detailed or provisional assessment. It added the necessary arrangements for the county court ‘should not be difficult to set up but they will need to be done’.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

IT hold-ups delay electronic bill of costs to 2018

Ban for employee who faked power of attorney signatures

A law firm employee has been barred from working in the legal profession after forging signatures on a lasting power of attorney. Laura Hayley Jackson had omitted to have two clients sign a section of the LPA form and sought to cover the mistake by signing the names herself. The forms were then sent to the Office of the Public Guardian and registered.

According to a regulatory settlement agreement published by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, the clients, a married couple, spotted the signatures were not theirs on receipt of the LPAs. 

They made a complaint to Jackson’s firm, Oldham practice North Ainley Solicitors, which found Jackson had signed the names of the clients. The firm dismissed her for misconduct.

The SRA said Jackson had admitted signing the LPAs and misleading the Office of the Public Guardian, and in doing so failing to act with integrity and in the clients’ best interests.

The regulator ruled that she be banned from working in a regulated firm unless the SRA has granted permission. The settlement agreement states Jackson was working in the Stockport office of national firm Edward Hands & Lewis at the time of publication. The firm has not responded to the Gazette’s request for comment, but there is no suggestion it has acted improperly and the SRA has confirmed it would have been possible to apply for permission to employ Jackson in advance of the agreement being published.

In addition to the banning order, Jackson was fined £1,000 and ordered to pay £300 costs.

The SRA has also published a rebuke in relation to solicitor Richard Roy Murrall, of Essex firm Pellys Solicitors Limited. Murrall was fined £2,000 and ordered to pay £300 costs after being convicted last July of driving with excess alcohol. The notice said Murrall was ‘extremely remorseful’ about the offence and has taken appropriate measures to address his conduct. 

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Ban for employee who faked power of attorney signatures

Whiplash reforms set to return in today's Queen's speech - reports

The government is poised to announce fresh personal injury reforms in today’s Queen’s speech, according to reports.

The BBC says the slimmed-down government wishlist will include a Civil Liability Bill to address the ‘compensation culture’ around motor insurance claims.

The pledge is likely to be similar to the whiplash elements of the Prisons and Courts Bill, which ran out of time before the snap election.

That legislation proposed a fixed tariff for all low-level RTA claims and a ban on insurers making offers without claimants having had a medical examination. A restoration of the measures was included in the Conservative manifesto for the recent election.

Personal injury lawyers will also be looking for any announcement today on the discount rate, which was subject to consultation before the election, and the potential for fixed fees in clinical negligence claims.

The speech is set to be made at 11.30am and will feature a reduced number of manifesto pledges due to the Conservatives’ struggles to form a government following talks with the Northern Irish party the DUP.

This will be the last Queen’s speech until 2019, as Brexit talks take precedence next year.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Whiplash reforms set to return in today's Queen's speech - reports

Judge slashes costs after CFA deemed unreasonable and unfair

mardi 20 juin 2017

The Senior Courts Costs Office of the High Court has thrown out a conditional fee agreement deemed to be unreasonable for the client. In Vilvarajah v West London Law Ltd, Master Gordon-Saker said the £420 hourly rate of the law firm which drew up the agreement was more akin to a top fee earner in the City doing complex, high value work and could not be justified.

Shopkeeper Nadarajah Vilvarajah had instructed Ealing firm West London Law Limited in a claim against him for fees of around £20,000 by another solicitors’ firm, Hodders Law.

After being billed £31,945 by West London Law in April last year, Vilvarajah asked the court for a detailed assessment of costs. Costs were assess at £15,323 by the costs judge following a one-day hearing last month.

The court heard Vilvarajah and the firm entered a CFA in January 2013 which provided for a discounted hourly rate of £150 for ‘all fee earners including solicitors, trainee solicitors and paralegals’, payable whether or not the claimant succeeded, and a ‘primary’ rate of £420 for all fee earners in the event he succeeded. Success was defined as reducing the costs claimed by Hodders Law.

Gordon saker1

But the CFA was such that if the agreement was terminated then Vilvarajah would liable to pay the primary rate of £420 for all fee earners. It was this possibility that occurred.

The court heard that the agreement was made after a 30-minute meeting in which the firm insisted it had taken care to explain things thoroughly.

But lawyers for Vilvarajah said the meeting had been too short for him to understand fully what was happening, and there was no follow-up letter to him containing a copy of the CFA or any further explanation of the agreement.

Gordon-Saker said the shopkeeper was a client of ’average sophistication’ in relation to legal matters who did not fully understand or appreciate the agreement.

‘There is no correspondence between the defendant and the claimant about the conditional fee agreement,’ he said. ‘I cannot conclude that an explanation given in a 30-minute appointment, with no attempt at communication before or after, enabled the claimant fully to understand and appreciate the terms of the agreement and in particular the liabilities that he was assuming.’

He said the agreement was unfair and should be set aside. The agreement was unreasonable, he added, given the straightforward nature of the case and the likelihood that most work would be done by a grade B fee earner. 

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Judge slashes costs after CFA deemed unreasonable and unfair

Online court won't repeat failure of Dutch model, MoR claims

The failure of a pioneering online court in The Netherlands should not deter efforts to build more ambitious version in England and Wales, the Master of the Rolls has said. In a lecture this month, Sir Terence Etherton laid out for the first time the scale of the ambition behind the proposed ‘Online Solutions Court’, which will be designed to operate largely without lawyers and to dispense with ‘preventive justice’.

The Netherlands’ Rechtwijzer, an online dispute resolution system for landlord-tenant disputes, debt and divorce, was widely seen as a model for 'Justice 2.0' when it was set up in 2014. However, in March this year the project's backers announced it would shut down in July as it had proved financially unsustainable. According to one estimate, it was handling only 1% of divorces in the Netherlands and its technology backer saw no way of turning the system into a commercial proposition.

In his Lord Slynn Memorial Lecture this month, Sir Terence Etherton admitted that the Rechtwijzer had been an inspiration for Lord Briggs' Civil Courts Structure Review, which proposed an online court. 'It might be thought that the failure of the Rechtwijzer does not augur well,' Etherton said. However, he cautioned against drawing this conclusion, claiming a 'fundamental difference' between the proposed Online Solutions Court and the Rechtwijzer.  

Sir Terence Etherton

'Our approach is to develop a court which incorporates ODR into its processes, rather than to develop an ODR platform which sits outside the court system,' he said. 'We are seeking to enhance our civil court, not create an online alternative to it. As such, the question of preference that undermined take-up in the Netherlands is unlikely to be replicated here.' 

Elsewhere in his speech Etherton set out the scale of the judiciary's ambitions for the Online Solutions Court - which he said is not yet an official name. It will operate in three stages.

First, it will assist individuals to find the right sources of legal advice and help in order to enable them to consider whether they have a viable legal dispute. By helping individuals before who have not yet reached the stage of beginning legal action it will 'secure access to preventive justice'. Assuming there is a viable dispute 'it will... enable claimants to identify the nature of their claim and submit relevant documents, such as the claim form, online.' 

In the second stage, case officers and court administrators 'exercising judicial functions under the supervision of the judiciary' will assist parties to manage the claim and reach a settlement. 'This is a significant departure from the court's existing role as it wil require a court officer actively to engage the parties in mediation and conciliation processes,' he said.  

The third stage will see the claim adjudicated by a judge. 'The process will not necessarily take place in a traditional courtroom. It may be carried out online by video-link, by telephone or on the papers.' 

Overall, Etherton said, the online court would ensure the core functions of the civil courts are 'not simply maintained but augmented'. While the process will be designed so that individuals can access the system without the need for legal advice, he conceded that lawyers 'will no doubt continue to play an important role in many cases' especially those that proceed to disposal by a judge.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Online court won't repeat failure of Dutch model, MoR claims

Society calls for independent enforcement in 'gig economy' workplaces

The Law Society has called for ’independent government inspectors’ to be deployed to probe whether businesses are breaking employment laws or exploiting their staff.

In recommendations published today, Chancery Lane say inspectors should be able to enter workplaces and see whether staff are employees, workers or independent contractors.

The recommendations appear in the Society’s submission to a government-commissioned review of employment practices being carried out by Matthew Taylor, chief executive of the Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce. The review, ordered amid concerns about conditions in the so-called ‘gig economy’, is due to be published in the next few weeks.

In its submission the Society said ‘now is the time for government and public policy makers to build upon the current employment law framework so that it is in tune with the evolving economy’.

The Society also calls for the immediate scrapping of employment tribunal fees.

Employment practices in web-based businesses have been under increased scrutiny recently.

The GMB trade union has started separate legal cases against businesses it believes are treating their workers as self-employed contractors rather than employed staff. Courier companies UK Express and DX and taxi service Addison Lee are among the companies it has brought action against.

If drivers were classed as workers rather than self-employed they would be legally entitled to benefits including paid annual leave, the national minimum wage, paid rest breaks and whistle-blower protection.

Currently, if a worker feels aggrieved they have to challenge their employer in a tribunal. However, the number of employment tribunal hearings has plummeted since the government started to charge claimants a fee to bring a case in 2013.

The Society says its members have reported instances of 
claimants with strong cases who see the fee as a significant 
deterrent to pursuing a complaint.

Law Society President Robert Bourns said: ‘Our rights at work are not optional - they are the minimum standard to which we are entitled.’

‘When there is a dispute our law relies on individuals taking their employer to court to get their rights recognised - a task that is simply beyond most people. An independent government inspector who can go into a business to ensure staff are being given their proper workplace rights will help put a stop to this exploitation, and put everyone on a fair and even playing field.’

The Society has also called for employment statuses and rights to be clearly defined in a single piece of law, and for large employers to report publicly on their employment practices.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Society calls for independent enforcement in 'gig economy' workplaces

Bar aims to tackle pupillage crisis

More than 60% of students who completed the Bar Professional Training Course (BPTC) fail to get pupillage, statistics from the Bar Standards Board have shown as the regulator ponders reforms to training. 

Figures released yesterday covering three academic years (2012-2015) show that just 39% of bar professional training course graduates went on to a pupillage. When information about students who enrolled in the 2015/16 academic year is taken into account the proportion of students gaining pupillage drops to 37%. Overall, 19.7% of pupillages were awarded to BAME candidates while 48.2% were awarded to women.

Earlier this year, the Gazettereported that the BSB would be pressing ahead with reforms to the training regime for would-be barristers, agreeing to adopt a ‘managed pathways’ approach. 

Currently, trainees undergo three stages of training: academic education, vocational training and work-based training. But the new approach would permit trainees to take different routes, including combining the sections.

Ewen MacLeod landscape

Ewen MacLeod, director of strategy and policy at the BSB, said the statistics would provide a benchmark to help the regulator measure the success of alternative approaches that will be authorised as part of the Future Bar Training programme.

He was speaking at event, ‘Future Bar Training: Next Steps’ held last night at which members of the profession and academics disussed how training could develop in the future.

Justine Davidge, chair of the BSB’s education and training committee, said key requirements for the new training regime – which will be introduced by September 2019 at the earliest - were improving accessibility, affordability and flexibility while maintaining high standards.

Professor Lisa Webley, professor of empirical legal studies at the University of Westminster, said providers should be encouraged ‘to be creative in their approach’, including through distance learning. She added that a challenge would be to establish to what extent that the bar accepts creativity. ‘If certain chambers and the employed bar are clear that certain routes are unlikely to be favoured then that messaging needs to be made clear,’ she said.

Vanessa Davies, director general of the BSB, revealed that the regulator had been in touch with the Solicitors Regulation Authority so that the regulators could work together to ensure ‘students know the best pathway to take to become a lawyer’. Unlike the SRA, the BSB is not planning a centralised ‘super examination’.

A review of how pupillages could be made more effective was also discussed.

Katherine Barnes, co-chair of Young Legal Aid Lawyers, said people’s experience of pupillage varied hugely depending on type of chambers and practice area.

One area that could be reviewed, though not scrapped, is the relationship between pupil and supervisor, she said. ‘We have heard reports of supervisors having personality clashes with pupils or of supervisors simply using pupils to do all their work,’ she said. 

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Bar aims to tackle pupillage crisis

Conveyancers seek to put leasehold reform back on government agenda

Conveyancing bodies have united to deliver a list of initiatives to the new housing minister for a '21st century' leasehold process. The Legal Sector Group comprises the Conveyancing Association, the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives, Bold Legal Group and the Society of Licensed Conveyancers.

Following consultation, including with the Law Society, the group today published an eight-point plan to reduce the potential for leasehold abuse, speed up the conveyancing process, increase consumer certainty and remove unreasonable costs.

Beth Rudolf, director of delivery at the Conveyancing Association, said the initiatives 'point the way ahead for a 21st century leasehold process' and urged 'the powers that be to put in place a programme of change'.

The group proposes what it calls reasonable fees for administrative activities, and a tariff of fees for quantifiable activities. The group suggests this could be set up by RICS or the housing secretary.

Lease administrators should be obligated to provide information, such as those set out in the Leasehold Property Enquiry Form (LPE1), in a certain time.

Freehold management or lease administrators should be made to join a redress scheme. HM Land Registry should be allowed to dis-apply restrictions requiring a compliance certificate where a conveyancer can provide evidence of compliance with lease terms in some other way.

Leasehold property marketing should include upfront information on, for instance, the remaining term of the lease, ground rent, nature of rent review clauses, annual service charge and charges imposed by the lease administrator for services in connection with the sale, ongoing ownership and property purchase.

Alok Sharma

The group has outlined the proposals in a letter to housing minister Alok Sharma. The proposals will also be presented to the Law Commission.

Simon Law, chair of the Society of Licensed Conveyancers, said it was 'gratifying' that the legal profession, including solicitors, licensed conveyancers and chartered legal executives, had come together to arrive at a common set of proposals for the government and Law Commission to consider.

He said: 'There is no individual or party better placed than those legal professionals who serve their clients day in and day out in buying and selling leasehold properties to architect the much-needed reforms set out in these proposals.'

Conveyancers have long campaigned for leasehold reform, which gathered momentum last year when former housing and planning minister Gavin Barwell said he was keen to work with interested parties to improve leaseholders' experience of home ownership. He was appointed Downing Street chief of staff this month.

National property law conference: overcoming challenges in a volatile landscape (11 October 2017, London)

The conference will meet the needs of both those working in commercial and residential conveyancing, while also addressing areas of common challenges. Take away practical advice from workshops focused on HM Land Registry updates, capital allowances, Stamp Duty Land Tax and planning issues for conveyancers. 
Click here for more information >>

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Conveyancers seek to put leasehold reform back on government agenda

Revealed: Jackson's fixed fees pilot to cap costs at £80k

Pointers for the potential level of fixed costs for civil claims have been revealed on the eve of a pilot scheme to test how the idea will work.

Lord Justice Jackson is set to issue his final report next month on the capping of fixed recoverable costs for claims worth up to £250,000. He has previously proposed a trial period for assessing the scheme.

The Gazette understands that the idea was to begin the pilot in May, but the Ministry of Justice delayed it until after the election. The start is now assumed to be imminent. 

Lord Justice Jackson at Law Society

Papers from the Civil Procedure Rule Committee meeting in May, published today, show costs in the pilot would be capped at £10,000 for pre-action work, £7,000 for particulars of claim and £7,000 for defence and counterclaim.

Parties can claim up to £6,000 for a reply and defence to the counterclaims, £6,000 for the case management conference, £6,000 for disclosure and £8,000 for witness statements. Expert reports are capped at £10,000, with the trial and judgment costs limited to £20,000.

The working group dedicated to the pilot scheme proposes an overall cap of £80,000 rather than setting an actual fixed amount at this stage.

The proposal, backed in principle by the committee, is to run the pilot in certain specialist civil courts: the London Mercantile Court and three courts in each of the Manchester District Registry and Leeds District Registry. Any cases where the trial will go beyond two days, or where the value is more than £250,000, are excluded.

The pilot will be open to new cases for two years and be monitored by academics. The papers reveal that Jackson is currently in discussions with Professor Andrew Francis and Nick Taylor of Leeds University’s School of Law.

It is common ground among members of the committee that there should be a streamlined court procedure. This is likely to be based on the rules around the Shorter Trial Scheme, but with small amendments. In terms of procedure, a list of issues will be reviewed at the claims management conference, including disclosure, limits on fact and expert evidence. Trial dates will be fixed within eight months of the CMC.

The scheme is voluntary and both sides must agree to take part, although parties should not have an ‘unfettered right’ to leave the scheme if they change their mind.

The defendant in the proposed scheme shall respond to the letter of claim within 14 days, while particulars of claim and defences with counterclaims must not exceed 20 pages. Other statements of case must not go beyond 15 pages.

Costs budgeting shall not apply to cases in the capped costs list, with the court instead making a summary assessment of costs.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Revealed: Jackson's fixed fees pilot to cap costs at £80k

Pro bono panel extended to Finsbury Park attack

A pro bono advice panel set up for victims following last month's London Bridge terror attack will be extended to people affected by the attack outside the Muslim Welfare House mosque and community centre in Finsbury Park, the Law Society has announced.

One person died and nine were taken to hospital after a man drove a van into worshippers near the north London mosque on Sunday night.

Society president Robert Bourns said: 'The people caught up in this awful attack will be dealing with enormous personal distress, as are victims of the other recent terrorist attacks. We hope free legal advice will assist victims to deal with unforseen and sometimes complex legal issues that will arise in the weeks and months to come as a result of these dreadful events.'

Free advice from London firms will be available through the panel on a referral basis to those affected by the terror attacks in Westminster Bridge, London Bridge and Borough Market, or in Finsbury Park.

Victim Support and the Legal Aid Agency will refer victims to the panel.

Law firms wishing to volunteer should email londonprobono@lawsociety.org.uk.

Victims of the Manchester Arena attack can receive advice through a panel set up by the Manchester Law Society.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Pro bono panel extended to Finsbury Park attack

Barclays to face fraud charges, SFO announces

The Serious Fraud Office has charged Barclays and four of its former executives with conspiracy to commit fraud. The charges, which also include the provision of unlawful financial assistance, were announced today. They relate to fundraising arrangements by the bank during the financial crisis in 2008 when it raised billions of pounds from Qatar to stay afloat. 

According to the SFO, the charges concern Barclays’s capital raising arrangements with sovereign wealth fund Qatar Holding LLC and Challenger Universal Ltd as well as a $3 billion (£2.3bn) loan facility made available to the State of Qatar acting through the Ministry of Economy and Finance in 2008.

Former chief executive John Varley is among the charged as well as senior executives Roger Jenkins, Thomas Kalaris and Richard Boath.

Barclays plc, Varley, Jenkins, Kalaris and Boath have been charged with conspiracy to commit fraud by false representation in relation to capital raising in June 2008.

In addition, Barclays, Varley and Jenkins have been charged with conspiracy to commit fraud by false representation in relation to capital raising in October 2008 as well as with unlawful financial assistance.

Jenkins, who is now based in the US, is being represented by Brad Kaufman, of international Greenberg Traurig.

Barclays said it is ‘considering its position’ in relation to the developments.

The defendants are scheduled to appear at Westminster Magistrates’ Court at on 3 July.

The high-profile announcement of charges follows a five-year investigation. It comes as the SFO faces an uncertain future following the Conservatives' manifesto pledge for a merger with the National Crime Agency. 

Jonathan Pickworth, partner at global law firm White & Case told the Gazette that the charges will only harm existing shareholders and employees of the bank. ’Why is it in the public interest to prosecute the bank for its fundraising efforts almost a decade ago?  Who does it punish and what purpose does it serve?  All the former management team moved on many years ago,’ he said.

Raj Chada, criminal defence solicitor at London firm Hodge Jones & Allen said: ‘There has long been a clamour for individuals at banks to be held accountable for the casino banking that led to the crash and the taxpayer bailouts. The irony here is that this prosecution has nothing to do with behaviour that caused the crash but related instead to the terms of a bail out. Even more strange is that Barclays have found themselves in this mess as they eschewed a UK government bailout and went to Qatar instead.

‘No doubt questions will be asked about whether a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) could have been considered in this case rather than a prosecution starting. The SFO have previously made clear that full cooperation is a key and it is not known what the position with Barclays was. Any fine for Barclays could be in the hundreds of millions.’

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Barclays to face fraud charges, SFO announces

SDT strikes off Clyde & Co associate who concealed case mistakes

An associate solicitor at a top international firm who sent misleading emails to cover for the collapse of his case has been struck off the roll.

Rajpal Singh Ahluwalia was an associate in the London office of Clyde & Co when a case he was working on was made subject to default judgment in May 2013 following a missed deadline for service of the defence. The court awarded the claimant damages of £500,000 plus interest and costs.

In October 2013, Ahluwalia attempted to send an email to an insurer client to update the situation, but this did not arrive because the address was incorrect.

Following a three-day hearing last month, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal said it was ‘inescapable’ that the solicitor had deliberately used an address which would ensure the report would not arrive safely.

The email also omitted key facts including that offers of settlement had been made in January 2013, that a defence had been served on 14 May and the default judgment entered on the same day. Ahluwalia denied he had laid a ‘false paper trail’ by sending the email to a spoof address and said he had been trying unsuccessfully to get approval for the defence from his supervisory partner.

The tribunal also heard Ahluwalia sent a ‘wholly misleading’ update to an insurance broker, saying the court had set aside its judgment and was proceeding with substantive directions. He accused the claimant solicitors of trying to seek a procedural advantage, whereas it was his firm’s fault that had led to the default judgment. Ahluwalia claimed to be working under ‘extreme pressure’ but agreed under cross-examination he had known the case had gone disastrously wrong when he contacted the broker.

The solicitor, 40 this year, has been practising for 11 years. He was managed by a supervisory partner and had been promoted in 2012 from associate to senior associate.

Ahluwalia admitted sending misleading emails to both insurer clients and an insurance broker though he denied allegations of acting without integrity and of dishonesty.

He did admit to further charges (not including the dishonesty and integrity elements) including making false statements to a firm of solicitors, failing to inform an insurer within reasonable time about the service of a claim and two offers of settlement, failing to ensure a defence was filed in good time. He admitted failing to take any steps to have the default judgment set aside until March 2014 – an application which failed.

He was suspended by the firm in November 2014 and resigned less than a week later.

In evidence to the tribunal, Ahluwalia's supervisory partner said his workload had not been particularly high and his time recording was lower than all the other solicitors in the team. She stated he had never reported to her he could not cope with his caseload.

Ahluwalia submitted this was his first experience of defence work and insurance issues and he found himself the second most senior member of the team despite his lack of knowledge about these matters.

He stated his supervisory partner was ‘difficult to deal with’ and did not read emails unless they were printed out. On the one or two days a month when she was in the office, her door often had a ‘do not disturb’ sign, he told the tribunal. 

The tribunal said it took into account that Ahluwalia had been a highly regarded and effective solicitor, but said his conduct had caused his firm financial and reputational damage. He had attempted to conceal his inactivity on the case and he been found guilty of dishonesty and lack of integrity on three counts.

It might have been he found his working circumstances difficult and would have benefitted from more support, the tribunal said, but he was a senior associate at a global firm and had been entrusted with these types of cases.

Ahluwalia was struck off the roll and ordered to pay around £41,000 costs.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

SDT strikes off Clyde & Co associate who concealed case mistakes

Pro bono panel extended to Finsbury Park Mosque attack

A pro bono advice panel set up for victims following last month's London Bridge terror attack will be extended to people affected by the Finsbury Park Mosque attack, the Law Society has announced.

One person died and nine were taken to hospital after a man drove a van into worshippers near the north London mosque on Sunday night.

Society president Robert Bourns said: 'The people caught up in this awful attack will be dealing with enormous personal distress, as are victims of the other recent terrorist attacks. We hope free legal advice will assist victims to deal with unforseen and sometimes complex legal issues that will arise in the weeks and months to come as a result of these dreadful events.'

Free advice from London firms will be available through the panel on a referral basis to those affected by the terror attacks in Westminster Bridge, London Bridge and Borough Market, or near Finsbury Park Mosque.

Victim Support and the Legal Aid Agency will refer victims to the panel.

Law firms wishing to volunteer should email londonprobono@lawsociety.org.uk.

Victims of the Manchester Arena attack can receive advice through a panel set up by the Manchester Law Society.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Pro bono panel extended to Finsbury Park Mosque attack

'Strong judiciary' pledge as Lidington sworn in as lord chancellor

lundi 19 juin 2017

David Lidington MP today told the most senior legal figures in England and Wales that he will be 'resolute and unflinching' as lord chancellor in upholding the rule of law and defending the independence of the judiciary.

Lidington was sworn in as lord high chancellor of Great Britain in Court 4 of London's Royal Courts of Justice before the lord chief justice, the president of the Supreme Court, the master of the rolls, the president of the Queen's Bench Division, the president of the family division, the chancellor of the High Court and the senior president of tribunals.

In an apparent attempt to distance himself from rows surrounding his predecessor Liz Truss, Lidington stressed that the rule of law together with the independence of the judiciary 'form the bedrock of a fair and democratic society'.

'They safeguard us against tyranny and dictatorship,' he said. 'They allow us to live in a society where no individual and no government is above the law. A society where executive power is balanced by a strong judiciary that acts without fear or favour, and a scrutinising legislature. Three branches of the state. Each separate but each having mutual respect for the others.'

Lidington said one of his key priorities in his former role as Europe minister was to promote the protection of human rights and uphold the rule of law in countries across Europe, especially in those nations that had seen these traditions and values crushed for most of the 20th century. His overseas perspective served as a 'sharp reminder' of how precious those principles are for protecting people's freedoms, democracy and way of life.

Lidington told judges sitting before him that their intellect, wealth of knowledge, personal integrity and commitment 'ensure we have a judiciary that's fair, free from improper influence and truly independent'.

He added: 'Judges embody the rule of law. You all bear the weight, often the lonely weight, of this most vital duty... For that and for the strength and health this has brought to [society] I would like to thank you sincerely.'

Earlier, the lord chief justice, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, told the lord chancellor that his appointment 'comes at a time of real challenge for our justice system'.

Lord Thomas said: 'Each of the three oaths you have taken is of great importance, but it is the third that encapsulates the special constitutional responsibilities for respecting the rule of law, for defending the independence of the judiciary and for the provision of resources which parliament has entrusted to the lord chancellor.

'So important and significant are they that parliament uniquely required the holder of the office to swear a solemn oath to perform, as we have just witnessed. Indeed, it is self-evident that it is vital for the whole of our state that these responsibilities are fully discharged.'

On the day that Brexit negotiations formally began, Law Society president Robert Bourns told Lidington that, through the 9,000 firms that make up the legal profession, 'we provide access to justice through a network of offices across England and Wales and, in the case of our City firms, additional and important global reach.

'We enable legitimate business between individuals, companies and states while acting independently from them recognising our higher duty as a profession to the system of justice and the rule of law.

'In the context of EU negotiations we also expect others to recognise the mutual advantage to our clients, including sovereign funds, maintaining the enforceability of judgments across the EU. At this time of challenge, it is essential that the global reach of our firms, practitioners, and this jurisdiction are not compromised.'

The chairman of the bar, Andrew Langdon QC, reminded the occasion that 'justice is not a "service" that governments can choose to provide or not; it is a separate branch of a democratic government'. 

Let's block ads! (Why?)

'Strong judiciary' pledge as Lidington sworn in as lord chancellor

UN judge convicted in Turkey resumes trial work remotely after passport is forfeit

A UN judge found guilty in his native Turkey of membership of a terrorist organisation has resumed work on a stalled Rwanda genocide appeal while waiting for his own appeal to be heard.

Judge Aydin Sefa Akay, who sits at the Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals, was sentenced to seven years and six months last week for membership of the ‘Gulenist Terrorist Organisation’ (FETO). FETO’s existence is insisted on by Turkish officials. He has been provisionally released on ‘humanitarian’ grounds.

Akay’s passport is ‘forfeit’ and he may not leave Turkey, but now that the UN court and its judges are in direct contact with Akay, it has resumed its work on Augustin Ngirabatware's appeal against a 30-sentence for crimes that include organisation of a genocide.

The court’s first decision since Akay’s detention last September was to grant the defence’s request for a review of the original judgment. A spokesperson for the Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals (MICT) told the Gazette: ‘The mechanism's understanding is that Judge Akay is confined to Turkey but… he has confirmed his ability and willingness to exercise his judicial functions in the Ngirabatware case.’

All of the judges on the bench, the spokesperson added, are currently carrying out their duties remotely apart from the president, judge Theodore Meron. Following Akay’s release from detention Meron consulted with Judge Akay, who confirmed his ability and willingness to exercise his judicial functions.

‘The issuance of the decision marks the resumption of the proceedings on the merits of the case by the full bench of the Appeals Chamber,’ the official MICT statement said.

MICT counsel and judges have been unanimous in condemning Akay’s detention and Turkey’s refusal to recognise his diplomatic immunity, asserted by the UN secretary general. Ngirabatware’s counsel, Peter Robinson, added that ‘efforts continue to get Turkey to respect [Akay's] diplomatic immunity’.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

UN judge convicted in Turkey resumes trial work remotely after passport is forfeit

Passport forfeit, UN judge convicted in Turkey resumes trial work remotely

A UN judge found guilty in his native Turkey of membership of a terrorist organisation has resumed work on a stalled Rwanda genocide appeal while waiting for his own appeal to be heard.

Judge Aydin Sefa Akay, who sits at the Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals, was sentenced to seven years and six months last week for membership of the ‘Gulenist Terrorist Organisation’ (FETO). FETO’s existence is insisted on by Turkish officials. He has been provisionally released on ‘humanitarian’ grounds.

Akay’s passport is ‘forfeit’ and he may not leave Turkey, but now that the UN court and its judges are in direct contact with Akay, it has resumed its work on Augustin Ngirabatware's appeal against a 30-sentence for crimes that include organisation of a genocide.

The court’s first decision since Akay’s detention last September was to grant the defence’s request for a review of the original judgment. A spokesperson for the Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals (MICT) told the Gazette: ‘The mechanism's understanding is that Judge Akay is confined to Turkey but… he has confirmed his ability and willingness to exercise his judicial functions in the Ngirabatware case.’

All of the judges on the bench, the spokesperson added, are currently carrying out their duties remotely apart from the president, judge Theodore Meron. Following Akay’s release from detention Meron consulted with Judge Akay, who confirmed his ability and willingness to exercise his judicial functions.

‘The issuance of the decision marks the resumption of the proceedings on the merits of the case by the full bench of the Appeals Chamber,’ the official MICT statement said.

MICT counsel and judges have been unanimous in condemning Akay’s detention and Turkey’s refusal to recognise his diplomatic immunity, asserted by the UN secretary general. Ngirabatware’s counsel, Peter Robinson, added that ‘efforts continue to get Turkey to respect [Akay's] diplomatic immunity’.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Passport forfeit, UN judge convicted in Turkey resumes trial work remotely

Judges' pay review to seek data on previous earnings

Just hours before a new lay lord chancellor is sworn in before a sceptical judiciary, the government has promised to consult judges on their pay rise. A letter from the Senior Salaries Review Body (SSRB) to the lord chief justice and other heads of the UK judiciary says the review, announced last December, will seek data on how judges' previous earnings compare with salaries on the bench.

Cwmgiedd

The widening gap between earnings in private practice and judicial salaries is widely believed to be a factor in the current recruitment crisis. Confirmation that such differentials are to be taken into account will be seen as an olive branch to the judiciary. 

According to the letter, the SSRB will submit its advice to the lord chancellor by June 2018. Its terms of reference are 'to look fundamentally at the pay structure, taking into account judicial recruitment in the light of the external market, retention and motivation.' 

In a strongly worded speech last week citing a 'lack of understanding of the position of the independent judiciary' by different arms of the state, the lord chief justice, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, spoke of the lord chancellor's duty to secure funds for the judiciary to carry out its role. 

'Such duties may preesent the holder of the office with uncomfortable decisions,' Lord Thomas said. He is expected to return to the theme at this afternoon's swearing-in ceremony.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Judges' pay review to seek data on previous earnings

CMS faces ‘breach of duty’ claim in investment dispute

The UK arm of international firm CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang is to face a multi-million pound claim brought by three parties, including one connected to the Swarovski family, alleging breach of duty. 

Issued at the High Court, the case alleges serious breaches of duty by solicitors at the firm against its client Alexander Mayr. The case is due to be heard at the Commercial Court at the end of July.

Mayr is a former director of Spokane, a private equity company which held assets for the benefit of members of the Swarovski family. Rouver Investments and Life Science Partners, both owned by Mayr, are also named claimants.

According to the claim, CMS acted for Mayr between 2010 and 2012. In 2011 a transaction being conducted for Mayr and reported to be worth a potential €1 billion (£873m) was aborted. A CMS engagement letter required it to discount its legal fees by 50% if a deal was aborted but, according to Mayr, this agreement was not put into effect. 

The claim alleges that CMS used inaccurate and confidential information belonging to Mayr to persuade Spokane to terminate its relationship with him and commence legal action against him in three different jurisdictions.

Mayr said the firm’s alleged misconduct caused him losses of around £65 million.

CMS denies the claims. Asserson has complained to the Solicitors Regulation Authority. 

Trevor Asserson

Mayr and his companies are being represented by litigation boutique Asserson Law Offices, based in London and Tel Aviv. In a statement, Trevor Asserson, senior partner of Asserson Law, said it was ‘the most shocking claim of misconduct’ by a law firm that he had come across in 30 years of practice.

CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang was created in May this year following a merger between CMS UK, Nabarro and Olswang. The merger created a firm with a £1bn turnover and the sixth largest law firm in the country by headcount. The firm is being represented by international firm Simmons & Simmons.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

CMS faces ‘breach of duty’ claim in investment dispute

Lawyers gloomy about keeping current PI award adjustment rate

Just one in ten personal injury lawyers expects the ‘discount rate’ applied to compensation awards to remain at the current level, a survey has found. Research commissioned by barrister Bill Braithwaite QC found 10% of lawyers predict the government will ignore protestations from the insurance industry to leave the rate at 0.75%.

The discount rate, also known as the Ogden rate, calculates what - if anything - should be taken from personal injury settlements to take account of the prospects of making more through investing the money.

Former lord chancellor Liz Truss set the current rate in February but faced a barrage of criticism before leaving her position last weekend. Now PI lawyers are seemingly resigned to her replacement resetting the rate.

Two-thirds of the 131 partners at PI firms surveyed expect the rate to be adjusted to between 1% and 1.5%. Almost one-fifth of respondents predict it will change to 0%.

Braithwaite said solicitors are ‘pragmatic’ about the chances of the government holding off insurer calls for action.

‘Under pressure from the powerful insurance lobby, they believe the government will roll over and backtrack on its decision earlier this year,’ he said.

’An adjustment to between 1% and 1.5% would be a compromise, face-saving position for the government to adopt - but it would be a backward step for justice.’

He added that a return to the old discount rate of 2.5% was ‘unthinkable and simply cannot happen’.

Around one-fifth of PI lawyers expect an announcement this year, with 81% believing the government will release the findings of its latest consultation during 2018.

Insurance companies suffered combined losses of £3.5bn last year following Truss’s decision, according to a report published by consultancy firm EY. The consultancy also forecasts another surge in motor premiums that had already reached record highs in 2016.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Lawyers gloomy about keeping current PI award adjustment rate

Grenfell Tower fire: lawyers step up pro bono efforts

The legal profession has stepped up efforts to provide support to the victims of last week's fire at Grenfell Tower in West London.

Lawyers and specialist housing advisers from homelessness charity Shelter and the Housing Law Practitioners Association are working with North Kensington Law Centre to run free daily drop-in advice clinics from today. The sessions, at Unit 15, Baseline Studios, Whitchurch Rd, will run from 10am-5pm every day.

Shelter says it expects the slots will be filled by volunteer lawyers but the scheme will be reviewed if there is a surge in demand.

The law centre has been working throughout the weekend to help hundreds of people needing immediate legal assistance. It will hold a residents' meeting at 6.30pm today at its office to help victims learn more about their legal rights and how the centre can help.

The centre is also seeking to raise £100,000 to help victims receive access to justice and legal support. As of this morning it has raised £20,567. Its JustGiving page states that the centre has been 'inundated with kind offers of help'. 

Meanwhile the centre's director, Victoria Vasey, confirmed that the centre has written to home secretary Amber Rudd, urging her to waive the fees for victims whose vital documents have been destroyed or need to be replaced.

The letter states: 'Over the coming days and weeks the law centre will be assisting those individuals who have lost all of their documents in the fire. This will involve making applications to the UK Visa and Immigration Departments. 

'Given the situation, these survivors are unlikely to have any supporting documents or the financial resources to pay Home Office fees for replacement documents. I am therefore writing to you to seek assistance in co-ordinating their applications.'

The letter continues: 'It would be ideal to have a named person within UKVI to liaise with on the understanding that fees will be waived, discretion as to supporting documents will be exercised and that where possible applications are prioritised. Clearly the lack of immigration status documentation is going to impact on these individuals in terms of rehousing, employment, accessing bank accounts etc.

'I believe that without your intervention or the issuance of an internal memo any application we submit will be rejected out of hand.

Over the weekend the government announced that every household whose home has been destroyed as a result of the fire will receive a guaranteed £5,500 minimum down payment, made up of £500 cash and £5,000 delivered through the Department of Work and Pensions.

Prime Minister Theresa May has pledged funding for legal representation for residents to ensure their ‘voices are heard’ during the future public inquiry into the tragedy.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Grenfell Tower fire: lawyers step up pro bono efforts

News focus: Solicitors set free - at what price?

dimanche 18 juin 2017

Crispin Passmore, executive director of the Solicitors Regulation Authority, put it bluntly: ‘Unregulated legal service providers are stealing solicitors’ lunch money – it’s about time they joined them.’

johnhyde

So forms the basis for the proposal – given the green light last week by the regulator – that practitioners should be able to work in unauthorised entities.

According to research published last summer by oversight regulator the Legal Services Board (see table below), the unauthorised market represents 5.5% of cases in which consumers paid for advice or representation. That proportion is only expected to grow. In family law, unauthorised providers enjoy a market share of up to 13%: in wills, trust and probate it is between 7% and 9%.

The SRA believes freeing solicitors to sell their services under the umbrella of an unauthorised firm will give practitioners more choice of employer and increase competition in the legal services market. In turn, this will bring down costs and capture those consumers currently priced out of the sector altogether.

‘It will help to tackle the issue that too many people and businesses simply cannot afford to access the help of a solicitor when they have a legal problem,’ says chief executive Paul Philip. ‘Removing restrictions on where solicitors can work will give the public more choice, increasing access to high-quality legal services at a price they can afford.’

Not everyone agrees, not least the Law Society. It foresees a fracturing marketplace with fewer restrictions on providers, no mandatory indemnity insurance and consumers more confused than ever. According to a 2016 survey commissioned by the Society, 82% of solicitors fear such reforms would damage the solicitor brand – a brand that the Competition and Markets Authority has identified as synonymous with high-quality advice.

President Robert Bourns fails to see how allowing solicitors to work in unregulated entities – with the existing protections watered down – benefits consumers.

 Consumer problem type  Indicative market share of for-profit unregulated providers
 1. Family (divorce)  10-13%
 2. Property, construction and planning  10-11%
 3. Wills, trusts and probate  7-9%
 4. Intellectual property  7-8%
 5. Employment  4-5%
 6. Convenyancing  2%
 7. Injury  1-2%
 8. Civil liberties  1-2%

‘The SRA’s role is to regulate solicitors to ensure consumers are protected – yet here it is opening the door for some solicitors to work in unregulated entities, sweeping away long-standing rules referencing conflicts of interest, proper professional indemnity and access to the compensation fund, so if something does go wrong consumers could struggle to recover any losses,’ he warns.

‘Clients seek advice about deeply private and often sensitive issues – they must be able to rely on the exchanges with their solicitor being covered by legal professional privilege as they currently are for solicitors in regulated entities.’

Will consumers be left unprotected? The SRA stresses individuals will still be subject to regulation, while clients will also have access to redress through the Legal Ombudsman. The regulator expects reputable unregulated providers to have indemnity insurance as a matter of course – even if it is not mandatory.

The SRA says fears that the reform will create a ‘wild west’, with solicitors running wild, are unfounded.

‘Clients can already go and access legal services in unregulated businesses,’ Passmore told a press conference last week. ‘All we are doing is adding a solicitor into that. If anybody thinks that is going to make things worse they clearly have less trust in solicitors than I have.’

The change is one of a number of reforms put forward by the SRA last week, although none is likely to come into force before autumn 2018 as further consultations are held on the details.

One thing at least appears certain: the SRA Handbook is set to shrink.

Paul philip 09

The handbook currently has a 30-page code of conduct and more than 400 pages of rules. The draft code of conduct extends to six pages. The SRA believes the current system is ‘long, complex, onerous and costly to apply’ and there is support for simplification. The revised rules and principles are subject to further consultation this autumn, but the emphasis is on a less inflexible form of regulation and on putting greater trust in professional judgement.

The SRA said: ‘Our view is that solicitors and firms do not need pages and pages of detailed and prescriptive rules to do the right thing.

‘Our focus is on principles and what matters – maintaining the high, consistent professional standards that the public expect. They also provide the clear basis for us to take action where solicitors do not meet their responsibilities and fall short of these standards.’

The wording of certain principles will be amended. For example, the obligation ‘not to allow your independence to be compromised’ is amended to the obligation to ‘act with independence’. Acting with honesty and with integrity – terms that one High Court judge recently said were synonymous – are included in the same principle, but can be pleaded separately in disciplinary action against a solicitor or firm.

The other proposed principles are to: uphold the rule of law and the proper administration of justice; act in a way that upholds public trust and confidence in the solicitors’ profession and in legal services provided by authorised persons; act in a way that encourages equality, diversity and inclusion; and act in the best interests of each client.

The principles concerned with running a business are effectively dropped, being deemed to have only tenuous relevance for in-house lawyers or solicitors working in unregulated entities.

The change with potentially the biggest effect on high-street firms was almost relegated to an afterthought. Accounts rules are set for substantial reform to allow greater use of third parties for handling client money. According to the SRA, potential providers have already expressed interest in offering this service.

Firms will have to show due diligence in choosing a service provider, satisfying the requirement to act in the client’s best interests and safeguard client money – although solicitors will not be responsible for monies held in the third-party account.

The definition of client money and client liability is also set to change. Under the proposals, firms that do not wish to operate a client account can create an exemption from doing so, where the only client money they hold is in relation to fees and disbursements for expenses incurred on the client’s behalf.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

News focus: Solicitors set free - at what price?