SRA refuses to budge over private board meetings

The Solicitors Regulation Authority says it has no plans to go back on its controversial decision to close its board meetings to the public.

Speaking to the press today SRA chief executive Paul Philip and chair of the board Enid Rowlands were unrepentant on holding its monthly board meetings, previously free to attend, in private. 

Instead the regulator promises to invite selected journalists to a post-meeting briefing and to make board papers available in advance, under embargo. 

During today’s briefing, which followed this month’s board meeting in London, Rowlands insisted that members of the public were not attending previous meetings.

‘We know it’s really important to talk to you and that’s why we are here answering your questions,’ she said.

Despite the promises to send journalists material in advance of the press briefing one of the key documents discussed during the meeting, a document for consultation on the regulations needed to bring into force the Solicitors Qualifying Examination, was handed to journalists only when they arrived at the meeting.

Chief executive Paul Philip said the regulator had a right to hold discussions in private, just as it did under the old system when there was a public and private session.

‘A board has a right to discuss things in private but we are not hiding anything away that’s why we are here letting you ask questions. We had previous meetings where nobody came so it was clear the public model wasn’t working.’

‘We are not going back on our decision,’ he added.

The SRA public ban means no regulator of solicitors holds open board meetings, with the Legal Services Board also choosing not to admit the public.

The bar’s regulator the Bar Standards Board has told the Gazette it had no plans to restrict the public from its meetings, though it does also hold a private session. The Gazette attended its most recent board meeting last week.

SRA leaders say they will better engage with the public through holding meetings in different parts of the country; focus groups with the public; visits to local law schools; and seminars.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

SRA refuses to budge over private board meetings

Compensation fund payments to cover solicitor failings drop 42%

Compensation paid out to clients who suffer at the hands of solicitors plummeted during the past year, the Solicitors Regulation Authority revealed today. 

In the year to 31 October 2016, grants of £10.3m were made to clients whose money had been misappropriated by their solicitor. During the same period up to October 2015, the total grants were £17.9m.

The fund, managed by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, received 1,504 claims in 2016 with an average value of £106,000. In 2015, 1,174 claims had an average value of £126,000.

By the end of last year the SRA had almost 400 claims still open, valued at £42.1m, compared with 292 claims still open in 2015 at a total value of £36.8m.

The SRA said the majority of payouts from the fund were linked to interventions, when the regulator takes possession of a law firm’s files and client monies to protect clients’ interests.

In the past year the top two reasons for compensating consumers were replacing misappropriated inheritance (£4m) and replacing stolen funds that were intended for house deposits (£1m).

It was agreed last year that solicitors’ contributions to the fund would remain unchanged: individuals pay £32 a year and firms £548. The total budgeted contribution for the 2016/17 practising year was £8.5m.

Investment income increased by £228,000 to £339,000 in 2016, due to an investment in longer-term cash deposits which started in 2015 and had matured part way through the year.

The decrease in payouts created a £2.2m surplus for the year, compared with a deficit of £11.5m recorded in 2015.

The falling cost of administering the fund also contributed to this turnaround; total direct costs decreased from £8.1m to £6.8m.

Paul Philip, chief executive of the SRA, said: ‘The compensation fund is there to meet real hardship, providing valuable protection for the public when a solicitor is dishonest or does not properly account for clients’ money and there is no other means of redress. We monitor the market closely so that we can be confident that the fund can meet the demands made upon it.’

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Compensation fund payments to cover solicitor failings drop 42%

Leigh Day: SRA denies prosecution will open floodgates

The Solicitors Regulation Authority has rejected the idea that its prosecution of London human rights firm Leigh Day will open the floodgates to other similar prosecutions.

In his closing submission today, Timothy Dutton QC questioned the firm’s contention that the SRA was wrong to pursue charges relating to breaches of principle five of the code of conduct.

That principle, stating solicitors must provide a proper standard of service to clients, is included in allegations against the firm relating to the handling of claims against the government on behalf of Iraqis claiming to be the victims of abuse by British service personnel.

Dutton accused Leigh Day of ‘scaremongering’ by suggesting other solicitors may be accused of breaching the same principle and hauled before the tribunal.

‘No case comes before this tribunal unless it has gone through the process of establishing prospects of success and the public interest test,’ he said. ‘Cases that come before you are suitable because they cross the threshold of seriousness.’

He added that ‘The guidance supports the SRA’s position, which is that breaches, if they are many and isolated, may still be breaches of duty but may not result in disciplinary action.’

Dutton also used his closing submission to address issues relating to emails and letters exchanged between the government and the regulator in the lead-up to the decision to prosecute Leigh Day.

The firm suggested earlier in the hearing that the SRA had used the case to lobby government for regulatory reform and it enjoyed an ‘unhealthily cosy relationship’ with the Ministry of Defence.

Dutton said there was no lack of independence on the part of the SRA and said there was ‘more than a hint that the respondents are seeking to shoot the messenger’.

‘If ever there was a case where public authorities, parliament, government, MPs, departments of state should have been concerned this was it. You would expect there to be correspondence between such parties in a case of such public importance,’ said Dutton. ‘One may think that a constant refrain of attacking the regulator ill lies in the mouth of those who, if they have committed the wrongdoing we allege, have committed very serious breaches.’

Leigh Day and three of its solicitors all deny wrongdoing. The hearing, now in its sixth week, continues.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Leigh Day: SRA denies prosecution will open floodgates

Fury over £5.48 immigration email charge

People outside the UK will be forced to pay £5.48 when they email the government agency UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI) with an enquiry in a move that has stunned solicitors.

UKVI, which is part of the Home Office, has announced that, from tomorrow, customer enquiries will be handled by a new commercial partner, Sitel UK. For customers applying from outside the UK, as well as having to pay £5.48 for an email, all phone numbers and opening hours will change. The number of available languages will be slashed from 20 to eight.

There are no changes for people contacting UKVI from inside the UK.

UK Visas and Immigration said the changes 'help the government reduce costs and ensure those who benefit directly from the UK immigration system make an appropriate contribution'.

However, solicitor Christopher Cole, partner and head of immigration at Rotherham firm Parker Rhodes Hickmotts, told the Gazette the 'exorbitant' £5.48 charge is 'beyond belief'.

The charge will include the first email inquiry and any follow-up emails to and from the contact centre relating to the same enquiry.

Cole said: 'Such a charge is truly shocking and wholly unjustified. In order to even come close to being able to justify such a charge, UKVI and their commercial partner will have to up their game considerably.

'For many years there have been high levels of concern about the limited, unhelpful and often plain wrong information provided by UKVI's international service when answering queries about an application. There will need to be exceptional improvements in the service to try to explain this absolutely outrageous charge.'

At present customers can email UKVI free of charge. The Home Office says responding to email enquiries from overseas customers, under existing arrangements, costs the Home Office a 'significant' amount to run. 

The Home Office believes the new charge will help to make its enquiry service cost neutral. It encourages customers to check the government website for information on visa applications before phoning or emailing UKVI.

Around 80% of calls and emails are made in English, the Home Office adds. The language services that will no longer be offered amount to 4% of the calls and emails UKVI currently receives.

A person applying for a visa to join their partner in the UK must pay a £1,464 fee for UKVI to process their application, Cole points out.

He said: 'There are often problems or delays with either UKVI's commercial partners who take in the applications at visa application centres or with the actual decision-making process by entry clearance officers.

'Anyone who pays such a large fee for a service should be able to contact UKVI to obtain information about the progress of their application or to raise a query about their case.

'Surely, being contacted by email is the most efficient and cost-effective way in which to communicate about an application and this should be encouraged, but instead UKVI (via a new commercial partner) has decided to charge for sending an email.'

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Fury over £5.48 immigration email charge

End DWP delays now, solicitor urges

A solicitor who called for a review of how the Department for Work and Pensions handles possible benefits overpayments into estates has urged the profession to air its concerns, saying the government must do more to improve the system.

Hull-based solicitor Terry Moore said he believes the ‘continuing delays’ by the DWP’s Recovery from Estates (RFE) section is causing ‘anger, anguish and financial uncertainty’ and has called on the department to continue making improvements.

Moore (pictured), a partner at Hull firm Burstalls, was told there was an ongoing review of the RFE process last year after he complained about delays in an investigation concerning an 89-year-old client. Moore said that while such an investigation should take roughly three months, this enquiry took almost a year and that the department’s lawyers posed questions that were impossible to answer.

The DWP reportedly asked for bank statements from 2003, despite the fact that most banks do not keep records for more than six years, and caused ‘great delay and distress’ to the executors and beneficiaries of the estate.

The review started at the beginning of last year but Moore, who wrote to the DWP in February this year to ask what improvements had been made, said it is in everyone’s interest, including executors and solicitors, to improve the system as soon as possible.

In its response to Moore, seen by the Gazette, the DWP said ‘a number of improvement activities had been delivered’ including ensuring staff are ‘multi-skilled’ allowing for more flexibility between areas of work.

It added that it hired 22 new members of staff at the end of last year and plans to hire more. It added that since October last year there had been a 33% reduction in the volume of outstanding post.

However, Moore said: ‘I am of the firm opinion that, so far as private client lawyers are concerned, executors under wills and the anticipatory beneficiaries of wills, the continuing delays by the DWP RFE section are causing great anger, anguish and financial uncertainty at what can be a very emotional and testing time.’

Moore is calling on solicitors to contact him with their view of the DWP’s procedure by using a scale of 1-10, 10 being excellent and 1 the opposite end of the scale. Moore can be contacted at tm@burstalls.co.uk.

A DWP spokesman said: 'Our priority is to resolve these cases as soon as possible, which is why we carried out an extensive review. As a result, we are making a number of changes which are already resulting in improvements.'

Let's block ads! (Why?)

End DWP delays now, solicitor urges

Two thirds of law firms dissatisfied with new business enquiries

More than two thirds of law firms are unhappy with the quality of new business enquiries they receive, a digital marketing agency claims. 

According to a report titled The State of Digital Marketing in Professional Services, 97% of law firms surveyed said they receive at least one new business enquiry per month. However, 70% of these said they are not happy with the quality or quantity (or both) of the enquiries.

A total of 370 professional services firms, including 70 law firms, were surveyed for the report published by Propero Partners. 

James Noble, partner at Propero, said: ‘The fact that law firms aren’t happy with 70% of their new business enquiries is significant – that’s a lot of wasted time and effort dealing with enquiries which aren’t right for the business. Bad quality or a low number of leads can point to a firm which isn’t doing enough to engage with the right people.’

The responses also showed that more than a third of law firms either do not convert any new business enquiries, or do not measure how many enquiries are converted each month – the highest rate of non-conversion in the professional services industry.

Noble believes that the number of law firms not measuring their conversions is alarming. ‘You need to know where leads come from and what brings them to the point of converting to better understand the needs of future prospects. Firms are massively missing a trick by not recording this information,’ Noble said.

The most common method of receiving new business enquiries was through web contact forms (77%). Phone calls direct to the firm accounted for 68% and events 48%.

The report also shows that most lawyers are engaged with social media, with 90% of those surveyed having a LinkedIn company page and 84% having a Twitter account.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Two thirds of law firms dissatisfied with new business enquiries

Cross examination of abused wife a 'stain' on justice system - judge

A High Court judge has said he will refuse to allow alleged domestic abusers to cross examine their victims in any future hearings he oversees.

Mr Justice Hayden said he found it 'extremely disturbing’ that a father appearing in person was able to question his former partner and mother to their 11-year-old son. The father was said to have threatened to kill his wife and prone to violent outbursts of temper in which he would frequently slap and push her.

Nevertheless, Hayden said it was necessary to allow the father to conduct cross examination of the mother directly. She was not present in the courtroom but cross examined by video link: the judge granted her permission to sit with her back to the video screen.

The judge said the mother, whom he described as articulate, educated and highly motivated to provide a decent life for herself and her son, faced an 'invidious choice' to submit to personal cross examination to order for the case to be concluded.

Despite efforts to ease her predicament, Hayden said nothing had masked the impact of the ordeal of the cross examination, and she looked at times 'exhausted and extremely distressed'.

He added: 'It is a stain on the reputation of our family justice system that a judge can still not prevent a victim being cross examined by an alleged perpetrator. This may not have been the worst or most extreme example but it serves only to underscore that the process is inherently and profoundly unfair. I would go further it is, in itself, abusive.

'For my part, I am simply not prepared to hear a case in this way again. I cannot regard it as consistent with my judicial oath and my responsibility to ensure fairness between the parties.'

Hayden noted that calls to end cross examination of abused witnesses have been made for more than a decade, and he stressed that any disagreement to the notion was 'redundant of any coherent contrary argument'.

The judgment itself was an analysis of preliminary legal and jurisdictional issues regarding the father's application for a return order for rehearing. Hayden said the father might have much to offer his son if he was able to address some of the violence issues, and CAFCASS had indicated a willingness to help both parents by making a referral for a child contact intervention. The judge hoped this suggestion would be pursued.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Cross examination of abused wife a 'stain' on justice system - judge

Barristers unpersuaded by new business models, BSB finds

Most barristers want to keep the chambers model and claim they can adapt to changes in the legal market while retaining the traditional set up, research from the bar’s regulator has shown.

According to a report published today by the Bar Standards Board, while ‘new and innovative’ business models are available, most barristers would prefer to keep the status quo for the self-employed bar.

The ‘provision of legal services by barristers’ report summarises the results of an online survey conducted by the BSB at the end of last year. The survey, conducted by Pye Tait Consulting, sought answers from barristers on their chambers' or company’s business models and the potential reasons for any changes they may make, including on whether to become a licensed entity or alternative business structure.

Of the 1,172 barristers surveyed, 199 (17%) responded. The survey found that barristers consider that the main drivers for changing their model are: meeting an unmet client need for legal services; needing to respond to competition in the market; and changing client expectations (for example fixed fee payment structures).

However, the responses showed that most respondents did not feel the need to adopt a new approach.

Just 5% said they planned to change their fee structure; 8% planned to change the way they receive instructions; and 7% said they were planning to change their governance structure. As responses were more likely to be attracted from practitioners who had at least considered new business models, the overall level of interest may be even lower. 

’The pace of change is therefore likely to be slow, with radical change sector-wide seeming unlikely in the near future,’ the report said. 

However, the results did not rule out change in the future.

The report said although there was an appetite for a ‘more dynamic and client-led model’, the extent of this appetite is currently limited with no clear view on when the ‘tipping point’ might be.’

Vanessa Davies, the BSB’s director general, said: ‘Improving access to justice, promoting the interests of consumers and promoting competition in the provision of legal services are key objectives of the BSB.

‘The chambers model seems likely to continue to serve consumers well in the future but our role as the regulator is also to enable barristers who do want to innovate to do so, through flexible regulatory arrangements,’ she added.

Last week, the Gazette reported that the BSB had approved its first ABS, an entity in which barristers and football agents will work together.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Barristers unpersuaded by new business models, BSB finds

Lawyers make the grade in BAME 'power lists'

Eight lawyers including six magic circle partners have been named in a power list celebrating the best BAME (black, Asian and minority ethnic) business leaders.

Partners at Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, Linklaters, Slaughter and May and Clifford Chance appear in the annual EMpower Role Model list.

The list, published annually in partnership with the Financial Times, showcases the top 100 BAME business leaders. This year it includes 10 lawyers, including three in-house.

A separate list also celebrates the top 30 BAME Future Leaders. There are six lawyers on that list.

The highest placed solicitor on the role model list is 11th placed Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer partner Timothy Wilkins. Funke Abimbola, general counsel at pharmaceutical company Roche, is 13^th.

Other magic circle representatives include Tom Shropshire, partner at Linklaters (20), Slaughter and May partners Sarah Lee (28) and Nilufer von Bismarck (66) and Habib Motani, partner at Clifford Chance (29).

The other in-house lawyers are Simon Dowson-Collins, general counsel at publishing house HarperCollins, who is 91st, and 55th placed Shanika Amarasekera, general counsel at British Business Bank.

The future leaders include Charlene Brown, an in-house lawyer at BNY Melon who is ranked second and Claudine Adeyemi, associate solicitor at Mishcon de Reya, who is seventh.

Also included were young lawyers from Clifford Chance, Freshfields, Slaughter and May and CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang. 

All the lawyers included in both lists are published below.

Role model list
Rank	Name	Firm/company
11	Timothy Wilkins	Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer
13	Funke Abimbola	General Counsel, Roche
20	Tom Shropshire	Linklaters
28	Sarah Lee	Slaughter and May
29	Habib Matani	Clifford Chance
55	Shanika Amarasekera	General Counsel, British Business Bank
66	Nilufer von Bismarck	Slaughter and May
77	Segun Osuntokun	Berwin Leighton Paisner
91	Simon Dowson-Collins	General Counsel, HarperCollins
92	Annette Byron	Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer

Future leaders
Rank	Name	Firm
2	Charlene Brown	BNY Melon
7	Claudine Adeyemi	Mishcon de Reya
11	Chinwe Odimba-Chapman	Clifford Chance
12	Ngozie Azu	Slaughter and May
16	Cherie Samuels	CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang
26	Nnamdi Emelifeonwu	Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Lawyers make the grade in BAME 'power lists'

Shareholder group's RBS action edges towards settlement

A group of shareholders at RBS is expected to settle its claim over a rights issue in the run-up to the 2008 financial crisis. The case has already run up defence legal costs of £129m. 

The RBS Shareholders Action Group claimed shareholders were misled about the bank’s financial health when RBS issued a prospectus for a £12bn share issue. The government was later forced to prop up the bank with £45bn of taxpayers’ money to save it from collapse and shareholders lost around 80% of their investments.

The group, which has around 9,000 members, has been recommended to accept a settlement offer of around 82p per share. The deal is worth about £200 million in total, though is slightly less than the 92p per share it had hoped to secure.

The group has been told to inform the High Court by Thursday on whether it will proceed or not.

The Gazette understands that around 70% of the group’s members will need to accept the offer before the parties can formally settle.

In a statement, the group said: ‘Having carefully considered the merits of the current offer… we have decided to accept the offer of 82 pence per share on behalf of our membership.’

The Shareholder Action Group was represented by Signature Litigation while international firm Herbert Smith Freehills worked for RBS. Both firms have been contacted for comment.

Simon Hart, partner in the banking disputes team at professional services firm RPC, said the ‘ground-breaking’ case has proven that shareholder group actions can work in the UK.

'Whilst this case was in many senses unique in size and scale, and though there will not be a flood of similar cases right away, it does mean that prospective claims relating to prospectuses and listing particulars will be looked at with much greater scrutiny,’ Hart said.

He added the role litigation funders played was significant as it allowed many smaller shareholders to pursue the claim for much longer than would otherwise have been possible.

RBS, which denies any wrongdoing, declined to comment.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Shareholder group's RBS action edges towards settlement

Banned conveyancer worked for three firms after changing name

A conveyancer who changed her name after being banned from working in the legal profession has been jailed for five years for stealing more than half a million pounds from three employers.

Oonagh Grant, 57, of Altyre Close, Beckenham, Kent, pleaded guilty in February at Croydon Crown Court to three counts of fraud by false representation and three counts of dishonestly failing to disclose information for personal gain or to expose others to loss. She was sentenced last week.

Details of her crimes were highlighted by the Metropolitan Police on its website.

Grant was convicted in 2011 of stealing from a law firm she worked for by transferring funds into bank accounts which she controlled. She was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment, suspended for two years. The Solicitors Regulation Authority banned her from working in the legal profession.

In 2013 Grant changed her name by deed poll to Frances Bernadette Grant. Under her new name, she did conveyancing work for a law firm in Lewisham, south London, as a self-employed contractor. She began redirecting funds, was caught and dismissed by the firm. An audit showed she stole around £28,000. The offences were reported to the police.

By this time, Grant had joined a law firm in Bromley, Kent, where she stole £223,950. She resigned when her employer was contacted by her previous firm.

Grant was arrested by detectives from the Metropolitan Police’s Operation Falcon in December 2015. During the interview she denied all offences. She was released on bail on condition she did not work for a law firm.

However, Grant subsequently worked for a firm in Reading. When the firm was alerted to the SRA order, she was dismissed. An audit showed Grant had diverted funds into her personal bank account.

Grant was arrested in October 2016 for breaching bail conditions. Police say she was later released on bail by the court to have 'planned surgery'. Grant failed to attend a Crown court hearing on 23 November 2016 and another appearance due to being ‘medically unfit’.

However, the Met says letters supplied to the court purporting to be from Grant’s GP were fraudulent. She was arrested on 15 January this year on suspicion of fraud.

Operation Falcon’s detective sergeant Daren Walby said Grant was a ‘serial fraudster who believed that she was above the law’ and who ‘even went so far as to send fake GP letters to the courts to delay her trial’.

The Metropolitan police says Grant stole £536,250 from three companies between 1 January 2014 and 3 August 2016. Only one firm has been able to recover some of the stolen funds.

Anyone who may have employed Grant is asked to contact Operation Falcon by dialling 101.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Banned conveyancer worked for three firms after changing name

Hogan Lovells boosts junior lawyers' pay

International firm Hogan Lovells has boosted pay for its junior lawyers by 5%, with those newly qualified now pocketing £75,000.

The firm said today that trainees will also receive a pay rise, though slightly smaller. Year one trainees will get £44,000 increasing to £49,000 in year two.

Previously newly qualifieds were paid £71,500, first year trainees £43,000 and second year trainees £48,000.

Now, trainees in their second year will pocket the same amount as their counterparts at magic circle firms Clifford Chance and Linklaters.

The money for newly qualifieds takes the firm ahead of Baker McKenzie, Mayer Brown and Norton Rose Fulbright though the magic circle firms pay more at this stage.

The increases will be effective from 1 May.

Lawyers are also able to earn ‘significant bonuses’ based on chargeable hours and/or a discretionary bonus, the firm said.

A spokesperson said: ‘We currently operate a merit based pay model with broad salary bands to ensure that we are able to take into account an individual’s performance when determining salary within the relevant salary band.’

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Hogan Lovells boosts junior lawyers' pay

Flight delay firm expects busy week from £100m BA claims

A bank holiday weekend of delays and cancellations could cost British Airways £100m in compensation payments to passengers.

Flight compensation specialist Bott & Co, which has fought a series of high-profile test cases to establish passengers’ rights to payments, said around 800 flights a day were affected by the IT crash causing planes to be grounded.

The firm said passengers will be entitled to amounts ranging from 125 euros to 600 euros becayse flights were cancelled within seven days of the departure date. The law exempts passengers from compensation if the delay was caused by ‘exceptional circumstance’, but the firm said this was unlikely to apply in this instance. The firm also estimated an extra £50m could be due for care and assistance including hotel accommodation for stranded passengers and additional expenses such as couriers for baggage.

Coby Benson, flight delay legal manager at Bott & Co, said: ‘The specific criteria for amounts and delay lengths depend on whether alternate flights were offered or not and how long the delay ultimately lasted for.

‘BA can’t get away with refunding passengers and hoping that’s the end of the matter – they are obliged to provide compensation under Regulation 261/2004 and we’re preparing for a busy week helping passengers recover that compensation.’

BA chief executive Alex Cruz said today that all the airline’s IT systems are up and running and the company is operating a full flight schedule at Heathrow and Gatwick. Cruz said two-thirds of the 75,000 passengers affected would have reached their final destination by the end of Monday.

The company said the problems were caused by an ‘IT outage’ and ‘power surge’ on Saturday and it ‘absolutely profusely’ apologised for the event.

Cruz said: ‘We are absolutely committed to making sure we fulfil our obligations, particularly from a passenger compensation point of view.’

He added the company’s website had details of passengers’ rights and how they could access them.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Flight delay firm expects busy week from £100m BA claims

Seriously injured say legal system is failing them

Severely injured people often feel unfairly treated by the legal system and are left unsatisfied with the outcome of their claim, a new survey has revealed.

The Spinal Injuries Association polled 136 victims who had made a claim after a catastrophic injury, with two in five saying they were unfairly treated.

Many were upset at the apparent lack of power and influence over the decision-making process, while others complained the legal process was not open, transparent and straight with their interests at heart. There were also complaints about levels of knowledge of their legal team and questions why liability could not be accepted when, for them, it seemed an obvious outcome.

Nearly every respondent wanted the process to be quicker and they could not understand why their case had taken so long.

‘The injury and legal claims process parachutes people who have had total control over their lives overnight into a very alien world,’ said SIA chief executive Sue Browning.

‘The research was clear - it’s time that the system was more compassionate to their situation and put the needs of these vulnerable people centre stage.’

The survey found one-third of victims considered the assessment and support of their needs had been poor. Just 53% had received an interim settlement, which fell to 33% when the claim was against the NHS for clinical negligence.

One in four respondents had no confidence that the compensation they received would meet their lifetime needs.

Victims said in many cases their life was ‘on hold’ while they waited years for a resolution to their claim: in one example a paralysed man described having to ‘camp out’ in his mother’s dining room for seven years without access to a bathroom, kitchen or running water.

Browing said there was a ‘clear divide’ between respondents who were happy with their claim because their legal team was knowledgeable, experienced and communicative, and those who felt their lawyers lacked these qualities.

‘Many say that the legal experience forced them to face up to the reality of their new unknown in a complex world where they felt at their most vulnerable,’ she said.

‘Spinal cord injury not only leaves people paralysed but it affects all their bodily systems below the level of the injury, so it requires a great deal of practical, psychological and physical adjustment and tragically, they say that the length of the legal process prevents them from being able to come to terms with this and move on.

‘It’s worse for those not receiving interim payments which they describe as their ‘life changer’ in order to get their homes and lives adapted to meet their needs.’

The full results of the survey are being analysed and will be shared with lawyers once lessons are fully understood.

The issue of compensation for serious injuries, as well as the system for processing claims against the NHS, have both become talking points in recent years.

The discount rate, which deducts a percentage from compensation awards based on prospects of investing the money, was changed earlier this year from 2.5% to -0.75%. Claimant groups said this ensured victims are no longer under-compensated.

Meanwhile, the NHS Litigation Authority has been rebranded as NHS Resolution has vowed to improve the way it handles and settles cases.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Seriously injured say legal system is failing them

Defamation cases slump to nine-year low

The number of reported defamation cases in the UK is at the lowest level since 2008/9, partly due to the Defamation Act 2013, according to research published today. 

A total of 58 cases were brought last year, down 8% from the year before, legal publisher Thomson Reuters said. It noted that the act, which came into force in 2014, made it more difficult for businesses to bring successful claims against newspapers and other publishers. Just 10 defamation court cases were brought by businesses last year, a 41% drop from 17 the year before.

There also was a sharp decline in cases brought by celebrities, with only three reported compared with 12 cases the year before. 

The only area where the number of social media cases is increasing is in social media: there were 13 cases last year, up from 11 in 2014/15 and eight in 2013/14.

’One of the aims of the reforms of the Defamation Act was to ensure that only serious claims could be brought and it seems it is having that desired effect,’ said Kim Waite, a senior associate in the media team at City firm RPC and a contributor to Thomson Reuters’ Practical Law service.

However, she noted that social media has made it easier for individuals to post defamatory statements online. ’Sometimes users of social media act as though it is outside of the scope of the law and then they are shocked to find that all the laws relating to defamation do apply.’

Thomson Reuters' research suggests that defamation cases involving social media are part of the reason for an increasing proportion of defamation claims being brought against individuals rather than media organisations or businesses.

Private individuals were named as defendants in 25 out of 58 cases last year. This represents 43% of cases, up from 32% the year before and 26% the year before that.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Defamation cases slump to nine-year low

A 'friendly' chat with a copper

How many lay people know what the potential consequences of a voluntary police interview are? My guess: not many. If I'm correct, this is worrying given in the last couple of months I've heard criminal defence solicitors being warned the number of voluntary interviews could increase due to bail changes. Youth justice practitioners are being told they're already on the rise.

Alarm bells started ringing in 2012. Criminal solicitor Robin Murray, founding partner of Kent firm Robin Murray & Co, wrote in the Gazette that the 'most serious and scandalous assault by police upon the rights of suspects' since the introduction of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 was being practised.

He said at the time: 'It is seductively attractive to a person frightened of attending a police station to agree to an interview being conducted at home. At the police station, when cautioned before an interview, a suspect has to be told of his right to consult a lawyer, whether under arrest or if attending as a volunteer (code C paragraph 3.21).'

'Unscrupulous officers are exploiting a gap in the PACE codes because there is no corresponding obligation on the police to remind a suspect who is interviewed away from the police station. What then follows is a written account (no electronic recording safeguard) of the interview signed by the suspect who is then reported for summons.'

Fast forward nearly five years and criminal defence solicitors are being told that more people could be asked to attend police stations voluntarily following last month's introduction of a 28-day bail limit.

Ian Kelcey, senior partner at Bristol and London firm Kelcey & Hall, told a Law Society seminar: 'We should inform our clients to ask for our presence. It is disarming for a person to go into the police station and "pop in" for a chat. It makes it sound far less serious than if you’re being arrested.’

Richard Atkinson, managing partner at the Kent branch of national firm Tuckers, predicted a trend for voluntary interviews to occur elsewhere.

Atkinson said: 'It’s very offputting and wrong-footing of defendants if they’re allowed to sit in their front room for a chat with a friendly officer. Not that we will be rushing to homes, but legal advice is available in the home and is covered under the legal aid arrangements. Clients need to be aware they have all of their rights.’

Just for Kids Law co-founder Aika Stephenson, a solicitor at London firm Hodge Jones & Allen, told a Youth Justice Legal Summit this month that the number of voluntary interviews is increasing - with a corresponding decline in availability of legal advice.

'I thought I was having a chat and now my child is in this legal process' was one parent's comment. Stephenson said: 'What parents [need to] know is that a voluntary interview is still an interview under caution and still has a far-reaching effect on [the] process.'

I conclude with Stephenson's plea to practitioners: 'We need to get the word out that [voluntary interviews] should not be at the expense of legal advice.'

Let's block ads! (Why?)

A 'friendly' chat with a copper

CoA right to take stern line on McKenzie friend concept, solicitors say

A Court of Appeal judgment that discouraged use of the term ‘McKenzie friend’ and described the bad experiences that some court users have had with unqualified advisers has met mixed views from the profession.

The judgment in R v Conaghan & Ors, handed down by Lady Justice Hallett, considered four renewed applications for leave to appeal against conviction.

They were listed together because in each case a third party who was not legally qualified had helped the defendant. One called himself a ‘McKenzie friend’ while two defendants were helped by students at Northumbria University and BPP Law School. The students did not represent the defendants in court.

Each of the appeals was rejected.

The judgment says the term 'McKenzie friend' is not appropriate in criminal appeals. ‘Terms such as “applicant’s friend” or “applicant’s helper” might well be more appropriate,’ the judgment adds, though it said it would be wrong to express a concluded view until it had seen the results of the consultation into McKenzie friends currently being considered by the Judiciary.

The judgment stops short of calling for a change in the rules regarding unqualified advisers and reiterates the position that the court will only allow a non‑qualified third party to address the court in ‘exceptional circumstances’ decided on a case‑by‑case basis.

According to Hallett, third party helpers have raised applicants' hopes, ‘taken up a very considerable amount of time and resources of the court, and put an applicant at risk of a loss of time order.’

Greg Foxsmith, criminal defence advocate and president of the London Criminal Courts Solicitors’ Association, said the court was right to discourage the use of unqualified unregulated advisers. ‘There has been a huge increase in cases where deadlines have been missed, loss-of-time directions made, and unmeritorious appeals clogging up the courts,’ he said.

However, he added that the judgment fails to recognise that the rise in cases where unqualified advisers are used are a result of inadequate funding. ‘To ensure that cases are prepared and presented properly in the first place, and that appeal advice where necessary is properly and promptly conducted, a properly funded accessible legal aid system is required,’ Foxsmith said.

Steven Bird, chairman of the Criminal Appeal Lawyers Association, echoed Foxsmith’s views on funding and said it was becoming increasingly difficult for those convicted of offences to find solicitors and counsel willing to take cases and that, as a result, those wishing to challenge their convictions often turn to unqualified people or organisations.

‘These organisations and especially the student groups are an invaluable resource to those fighting miscarriages of justice especially given the increasing difficulties in legal aid funding for this work. However, they will need to consider this judgment carefully to ensure that their work is adequately supervised but we hope that they will not be discouraged in their efforts by the judgment,’ Bird added.

Ray Barry, chair of the Society of Professional McKenzie Friends, said the judgment should not be seen as having a wider significance. ‘I don’t see much of significance in this judgment other than the criminal division has had a handful of bad experiences with law students and other third-party advisers in this case. There seems no proposal to depart from the principles applied in the civil and family jurisdictions, where McKenzie friends are more prevalent.’

Let's block ads! (Why?)

CoA right to take stern line on McKenzie friend concept, solicitors say

Sir Cliff gets courts boost after police row settled

Sir Cliff Richard has settled his dispute with South Yorkshire Police over reports naming him as a suspected sex offender, though his continuing dispute with the BBC received a boost in court today. 

Mr Justice Mann, presiding over a High Court hearing between Richard, South Yorkshire Police and the BBC was told today that the singer and police bosses had come to terms.

The singer had taken legal action against the BBC and the police force over coverage of a raid at his home in Sunningdale in August 2014.

The case against him, in which he was investigated over historical sexual assault allegations, was dropped last year.

However, Richard remains in dispute with the BBC. Earlier today, the High Court said the BBC should reveal details about where one of its journalists obtained information about the raid.

Richard claimed that BBC journalist Dan Johnson had found out about the existence of an investigation into him from a person involved in, or from a person associated with, Operation Yewtree, a Metropolitan Police operation into historic child abuse. The Metropolitan Police asked South Yorkshire Police to conduct the investigation.

According to today’s judgment, Richard claimed that South Yorkshire Police was ’strong-armed’ into giving Johnson advance information about the raid because he had already been told about the investigation by a Yewtree source if it did not give Johnson information he would reveal details of the investigation before the Yorkshire force was ready to launch its raid.

Richard made a Part 18 request regarding Johnson’s knowledge of the source. The BBC said it wished to be able to decline to answer on the basis that it risked exposing a journalistic source.

But Mann said the BBC should clarify whether or not Johnson’s source was from within operation Yewtree or a person who had obtained information from the operation.

‘It follows that the claimant’s application succeeds and the BBC must provide a proper answer to the question posed,’ Mann wrote.

He added that the fact that a source might not be happy to have the information revealed does not, of itself, give the information great weight.

‘The ultimate weight of the interests of Johnson and his source, arising from that consideration and Johnson’s position as a journalist, is what I have to assess, and compare with the rights and interests of Sir Cliff.’

Mann said rights and interests of Sir Cliff are in his view ‘much more weighty’.

‘I find that the balance comes down clearly in favour of the question being answered,’ he said.

Earlier this month, the Gazette reported that lawyers for the BBC had recorded disapproval at the ‘grossly unreasonable’ costs incurred so far by Richard. The total pre-action legal bill is estimated to come to almost £900,000 plus VAT.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Sir Cliff gets courts boost after police row settled

Sir Cliff handed BBC boost after police row settled

Sir Cliff Richard has settled his dispute with South Yorkshire Police over reports naming him as a suspected sex offender, though his continuing dispute with the BBC received a boost in court today. 

Mr Justice Mann, presiding over a High Court hearing between Richard, South Yorkshire Police and the BBC was told today that the singer and police bosses had come to terms.

The singer had taken legal action against the BBC and the police force over coverage of a raid at his home in Sunningdale in August 2014.

The case against him, in which he was investigated over historical sexual assault allegations, was dropped last year.

However, Richard remains in dispute with the BBC. Earlier today, the High Court said the BBC should reveal details about where one of its journalists obtained information about the raid.

Richard claimed that BBC journalist Dan Johnson had found out about the existence of an investigation into him from a person involved in, or from a person associated with, Operation Yewtree, a Metropolitan Police operation into historic child abuse. The Metropolitan Police asked South Yorkshire Police to conduct the investigation.

According to today’s judgment, Richard claimed that South Yorkshire Police was ’strong-armed’ into giving Johnson advance information about the raid because he had already been told about the investigation by a Yewtree source if it did not give Johnson information he would reveal details of the investigation before the Yorkshire force was ready to launch its raid.

Richard made a Part 18 request regarding Johnson’s knowledge of the source. The BBC said it wished to be able to decline to answer on the basis that it risked exposing a journalistic source.

But Mann said the BBC should clarify whether or not Johnson’s source was from within operation Yewtree or a person who had obtained information from the operation.

‘It follows that the claimant’s application succeeds and the BBC must provide a proper answer to the question posed,’ Mann wrote.

He added that the fact that a source might not be happy to have the information revealed does not, of itself, give the information great weight.

‘The ultimate weight of the interests of Johnson and his source, arising from that consideration and Johnson’s position as a journalist, is what I have to assess, and compare with the rights and interests of Sir Cliff.’

Mann said rights and interests of Sir Cliff are in his view ‘much more weighty’.

‘I find that the balance comes down clearly in favour of the question being answered,’ he said.

Earlier this month, the Gazette reported that lawyers for the BBC had recorded disapproval at the ‘grossly unreasonable’ costs incurred so far by Richard.The total pre-action legal bill is estimated to come to almost £900,000 plus VAT.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Sir Cliff handed BBC boost after police row settled

Defence firm in 'second class stamp' debacle responds to judge

A criminal defence firm in Hull has apologised to a judge after posting a second-class stamped letter sent on a Friday informing a defendant that he was required to attend a court hearing the following Monday. The firm's letter to the judge highlights the challenges faced by practitioners when court listings are changed at short notice.

The Hull Daily Mail reported this week that the defendant had been due to appear at Hull Crown Court on Monday but did not attend. HH Jeremy Richardson QC demanded an explanation from the firm's senior partner why a second class stamp was used for the letter alerting the defendant of the new hearing date.

Barker & Copeman confirmed to the Gazette today that a letter was hand-delivered to Richardson on Tuesday.

Writing in the capacity of a senior partner, solicitor and partner Michael Copeman told the judge that, between 3.11pm and 3.25pm on Thursday 18 May, the firm received emails from Hull Crown Court's listings office indicating that four of the firm's cases had been taken out of the following day's list and added to the list for Monday.

Copeland writes: 'Letters were sent to clients where appropriate but it was decided not to write to [our client] and instead allow him to attend at Hull Crown Court on Friday 19 May in order that a member of our firm may have a discussion with him.

'I understand that [our client] did not attend on 19 May and it is accepted that a letter should have been sent to him on that date confirming that he must attend at Hull Crown Court on Monday 22 May. Regrettably such a letter was not sent and I apologise unreservedly for this oversight.'

Copeland continues: 'If [our client] had attended on 19 May he would, of course, have been informed that his presence was required on the following Monday. It appears that [a member] of our firm had not realised that a letter had not been sent and [they] inadvertently gave inaccurate information to defence counsel.'

Copeland tells Richardson that cases are frequently taken out of the list at short notice 'and our firm always takes every possible step to inform clients, either by telephone or sending letters by first class post'.

He adds: 'I should explain that second class post is used for routine and non-urgent correspondence but first class post is invariably utilised when time is of the essence. I would also comment that it was not possible to contact [our client] by telephone since the police had seized his mobile phone and he is not in possession of a replacement.'

As an example of the difficulties solicitors face when late changes are made to crown court listings, Copeland told the Gazette that the firm, on Wednesday at 11.42am, received an email from the court indicating that a case scheduled for hearing on 26 May had been removed from the list and would now be heard on 16 June.

At 2.50pm on the same day, the firm received an email stating that the case would be heard on 25 May, not 16 June.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Defence firm in 'second class stamp' debacle responds to judge

Shiner did wrong - but torture is worse, says veteran rights campaigner

Critics of the behaviour of lawyers pursuing claims against British troops in Iraq should look at the bigger picture, a leading civil rights lawyer said last night. Referring to disgraced former solicitor Phil Shiner, Clive Stafford Smith, founder of the advocacy group Reprieve, said: 'Phil did some things he shouldn’t have done. But what’s worse, what he did as a lawyer or those who tortured people?’

Stafford Smith was delivering the twentieth Graham Turnbull memorial lecture, hosted by the Law Society's human rights committee at Chancery Lane. The lecture, and an essay competition is named after English solicitor Graham Turnbull who was killed in February 1997, aged 37, while working as a human rights monitor for the UN in Rwanda.

This year's topic was whether UK forces should enjoy immunity against civil claims when on active service. Stafford Smith described the government's proposals for a derogation from the Human Rights Act as a 'flat earth' issue, which the legal profession is united in thinking 'totally mad'. Service personnel would be among the first to suffer, he said, pointing to revelations about injuries caused by inadequate equipment in Iraq. 

Overall he likened the government's position to the Catholic Church's prosecution of Galileo. 'The church admitted it was wrong about Galileo in 1982. Our hope is to shorten the period in this case.' 

Stafford Smith also made a scathing attack on the government's attempts to hold secret hearings into a current case, that of Amanatullah Ali, a Pakistani held for 10 years at Bagram base in Afghanistan after being held by British forces in Iraq. He alleged that 12 ministers had lied to parliament about the UK government's role in extraordinary renditions. 'Now they want to have a secret hearing so they can continue years of cover-up.'

Reprieve's current tactic is to ask newspapers to take legal action to be allowed to report the case, he said. He was confident of eventual victory: 'The longer it takes, the worse they’re going to look. They can fight us as long as they like, but they’re going to lose because they’re wrong.’

• The winning entry of this year's Graham Turnbull memorial essay competition, by Alexander Andrew McColl on Should UK forces have immunity against civil claims brought against them claiming breach of rights protected under the ECHR in situations of conflict, peacekeeping, or policing?, is available here.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Shiner did wrong - but torture is worse, says veteran rights campaigner

Bar rolls out shared parental leave scheme

Barristers’ chambers will be required to allow self-employed members to take up to a year’s parental leave under a policy approved by the Bar Standards Board yesterday. 

Since April 2015, employed barristers and their partners have been able to share parental leave between both parents in the first year of a child’s life, or one year from adoption. However, there was no requirement for chambers to make similar arrangements for self-employed members.

A BSB consultation on changing the rules, backed the representative body the Bar Council, was published last November. It was approved by the regulator’s board yesterday.

The new rules allow a self-employed barrister to share leave of up to a year with their partner. It will be up to their chambers to decide how much they contribute to rent and expenses during the leave period. However, where rent is paid on a flat rate basis, a barrister on parental leave must be allowed six months rent free. 

The regulator says that the majority of its 19 responses to consultation on the policy had been positive. They indicated that the increased burden on chambers was ’unlikely to be very large’, the board said. ’The respondents argued that the likely increased burden would be justified, as it would be outweighed by the benefits to the work/life balance of parents, benefits of the child and long term benefits to the chambers.’

However, two respondents were not in favour of the proposals. The regulator said either they ‘denied the existence of a problem’ or supported an alternative proposal that would apply only to mothers.

The BSB outlined four scenarios in which the new policy could be implemented.

These were: when both carers are self-employed barristers operating out of the same chambers, both carers are self-employed barristers operating out of different chambers, one carer is a self-employed barrister and the other is employed and finally, one carer is a self-employed barrister and the other is not in paid work.

Under the first scenario both carers would have an entitlement to full leave and rent free arrangements, in the second situation both barristers’ chambers would grant full parental leave entitlement.

In the third scenario the self-employed barrister would be entitled to leave arrangements regardless of whether their partner took leave or not and in the fourth situation the self-employed barrister is entitled to leave, irrespective of the employment status of their partner.

During the meeting, Ewen Macleod, the BSB’s director of strategy and policy, said the policy should be seen as ‘everyone having the same leave entitlement’ rather than shared leave.

The BSB said the plans will promote its objectives of encouraging a strong independent and diverse bar.

Macleod added: ’The rule change will allow barristers to share parenting, by allowing them to take whatever leave they want up to a whole year, without having to compromise the other parent’s ability to also take a whole year of parental leave. We think this could help the bar to retain those with parental responsibilities by making it easier for self-employed barristers to combine work and family life. This could help with efforts to encourage more gender diversity within the profession, especially at the senior end.’

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Bar rolls out shared parental leave scheme

Society to look again at training elements of conveyancing quality scheme

The Law Society of England and Wales today announced it will look again at the training elements of its Conveyancing Quality Scheme (CQS) in response to a ruling by the Competition Appeal Tribunal.

Ruling today in Socrates Training v The Law Society of England and Wales, the tribunal found that for a short period from April 2015, the Law Society should have permitted third party trainers to offer some of the modules for the scheme. CQS has been running since 2010.

Only one of the modules that concerned the tribunal was provided - the financial crime module - and that has now been withdrawn, Chancery Lane said. 

Law Society president Robert Bourns said: 'For the vast bulk of the time CQS training has been available it has been compliant with competition rules. I am certain that in setting CQS up, the Law Society acted in good faith and in the public interest. The purpose of CQS - and its effect - was to ensure 'greater consumer choice in terms of practitioners available to undertake this important work.

'We note the decision and have and will take steps to avoid similar issues in the future.'

Bourns stated: 'Purchasing a house is the biggest investment most people make, and they need to feel confidence in the process, as do lenders. That was always our motivation - CQS has never been about profit.'

'We are grateful to the tribunal for their guidance on the changes to CQS that they make in their ruling and we will be looking at their comments as a matter of priority in the coming days.'

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Society to look again at training elements of conveyancing quality scheme

Electronic bill of costs compulsory from October

Solicitors should brace themselves for a major change in the way litigation costs are worked out when a new electronic bill of costs becomes compulsory.

The Civil Procedure Rule Committee has reportedly decided that the new bill will be mandatory for all detailed assessments in the Senior Courts Costs Office from October. The change is now subject to ministerial approval.

The Association of Costs Lawyers, which relayed the decision, says the committee is meeting HM Courts and Tribunals Services to discuss implementation, and changes to the CPR will be included in the next scheduled update in July.

The roll-out will happen despite lawyers’ reluctance to take part in a scheme for the original electronic bill, Precedent AA.

The rule committee made amendments to the bill being used in the pilot, issuing Precedent AB, allowing users to create their own versions so long as they included certain levels of information. But the ACL says the roll-out will still go through without the SCCO having dealt with a single electronic bill.

ACL vice-chairman Francis Kendall said it seems likely that costs incurred after October will have to be in the format, so solicitors should make immediate efforts to understand what is required.

'Done properly, it can offer significant benefits to parties, judges and lawyers alike,' he said. 'It is obviously a concern that the pilot did not deliver any data, and it may be that - as Lord Justice Jackson himself said last year - making it compulsory is the only way to change practice.

'But it also means that, initially, everyone will be flying in the dark to some extent, and there are bound to be teething problems. It is vital in particular that sufficient time is put aside for judicial training.'

The Gazette reported last year the bill of costs was likely to be compulsory from October 2017, subject to the results of the pilot.

A note from the Ministry of Justice said: 'Parties will be able to file their bill in electronic format which will assist the court in assessing the bill as any adjustment made by the court, to, say, the rate or hours claimed, will automatically be carried through to all relevant parts of the bill.'

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Electronic bill of costs compulsory from October

Claims management giant sets up own law firm

Claims management giant National Accident Helpline (NAHL) has anticipated the chilling effect of PI reforms by setting up its own business to handle cases - in competition with its 50-odd panel firms. The stock exchange listed company today announced that it is setting up an alternative business structure in a jont venture with Bristol and Cardiff firm NewLaw, a subsidiary of Redde plc.

The new firm, which will trade under the name Your Law LLP, will initially employ 75 people in Bristol and Cardiff and open for business on 1 July. It is designed to handle 1,000 cases per month, which will be generated on top of the existing undisclosed caseload referred to panel firms, Simon Trott, managing director, told the Gazette. 

Trott told the Gazette that the investment is only the first stage in a strategy to increase the company's share of the PI market while continuing to provide marketing services to panel firms. It will be followed by further announcements, including the creation of at least one more ABS, in the coming months, Trott said.

Trott said that NAHL had spoken to all its existing panel firms about the new venture and 'they totally accepted it'. There will be no favouritism, he stressed. 'It will be treated like one of our existing family firms.' NAHL will hire an independent external auditor to demonstrate that no cherry-picking of cases is taking place, he said. 

Trott declined to say how much had been invested in the joint venture. However, in December last year the company told the stock exchange that it would make an ‘exceptional investment’ of £1.7m by the end of 2017 to ensure its brand positioning and processes are ‘aligned to the requirements of the new regulatory environment’.

Shares in NAHL Group plc rose 2.7% to 141p following the news.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Claims management giant sets up own law firm

Former government solicitor banned for backdating court document

A solicitor has been struck off for backdating a letter to the court to cover a mistake while employed in the Treasury Solicitor’s Department. Syed Tauseef Rizvi was based in the private law division working on behalf of the Ministry of Justice when he failed to meet a 20 November 2013 deadline for filing a defence in a case brought by a serving prisoner, the tribunal heard. 

When the claimant’s solicitors applied for default judgment, Rizvi sent an email to Bristol County Court attaching a copy of the defence dated 13 November.

Around the same time, he asked his client's representative to backdate a defence, to be filed at court and served upon his opponent in litigation, to conceal the fact he had not filed and served his client’s defence in time.

The solicitor argued a heavy workload and lack of supervision - in addition to personal problems - had contributed to what was a one-off mistake.

Rizvi, 36 this year and qualified for nine years, had been recruited to work as TSol as a solicitor on a temporary contract through outsourcing business Capita. He worked in the department from January 2013 to March 2014. His misconduct was reported to the SRA the week after he left by Sarah Groom, head of the private law division, who stated he had falsified statements of truth and knowingly made untrue statements in a witness statement.

Rizvi admitted all allegations and appeared in person at a Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal hearing last month.

He told the tribunal his mother had died in January 2013 and his arranged marriage had been on the point of collapse. The stress he had suffered led to a situation where he was not able to focus properly and he submitted he was not ‘there’ during the relevant period. Meanwhile he had a ‘very difficult and time consuming’ caseload of up to 120 cases, and he had been trying to get this particular case settled without any admission of liability by the MoJ. He was working with little supervision as at a time the department had more locum solicitors than permanent staff.

Since leaving TSol Rizvi had been employed as a team leader at Slater Gordon Legal Solutions, who accepted he had made a gross error of judgment but that it was a ‘one-off aberration’. An email from SGLS general counsel said the firm had not seen 'any cause for concern in relation to [Rizvi’s] honesty and integrity during his two-year period of employment’.

Despite Rizvi's regret and apologies, the tribunal said Rizvi had been the author of his own misfortunes who breached the trust placed in him by TSol and its client.

The judgment, published this week, added: '[Rizvi] had had direct control of and responsibility for the circumstances in which the misconduct occurred. At the time of the misconduct, [he] had been qualified as a solicitor for over five years, and he was 32 years old; he could not be said to be inexperienced or naive.’

The tribunal accepted that personal problems had a 'cumulative effect’. But Rizvi's misconduct had come over several months and was deliberate. In those circumstances, there were no exceptional circumstances to justify any sanction other than a strike off.

Rizvi was also ordered to pay £4,000 costs.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Former government solicitor banned for backdating court document

'Overwhelming' pro bono response to Manchester Arena bombing

Manchester Law Society has received an ‘overwhelming’ response in the last 48 hours to its plea for pro bono advice and representation for families and seriously injured people following Monday's attack on the Manchester Arena.

The society's chief executive, Fran Eccles-Bech, said more that 100 solicitor firms, law students, barristers and 'bigger' law firms in the north and farther afield have offered to provide free advice to help with legal issues that those affected by the bombing may face.

Eccles-Bech said the society is working with Manchester police 'so that victims can more easily find the help they need'.

The day after the attack, the society said on its website that it was coordinating a 'pro bono advice rota', looking for firms willing to help with Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority claims and inquests.

Areas that may require advice are: administration of estates, property ownership/mortgage; insurance; welfare benefits; family/child custody; death in service/pension; and financial obligations/debt.

The society said: 'It is appreciated that there may come a time when a particular issue, for example a complex contested probate litigation, might need to [be] handled on a non pro bono basis and as such on a conditional fee agreement. However, we do believe that in the early to medium term the approach of member firms should be totally pro bono.'

Eccles-Bech said today: 'I know ours is a small contribution in the face of the enormity of the impact of the attack on so many people's lives, but I hope we can help even a little.'

Greater Manchester Police says 22 people have been confirmed dead in addition to the man believed to have been responsible.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

'Overwhelming' pro bono response to Manchester Arena bombing

Solicitor fined £7.5k - with four times that in costs

A solicitor has received a £7,500 fine, but four times that amount in costs, for his 'sloppy' conduct in a property transaction.

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal said Daniel Mun Kin Tang's work on the transaction in 2012 'was more than sloppy', in a judgment published on its website.

Tang, a solicitor at north London firm Christopher Mathew Solicitors and admitted to the roll in 2006, acted for TP Ltd in relation to the purchase of three flats. He was instructed to prepare and execute an investment agreement to part-fund the £252,000 purchase.

Tang denied the Solicitors Regulation Authority's allegation that the transaction had 'a number of dubious features'. The judgment states that he 'accepted that he was "sloppy" in the way that he handled the transaction and ought to have satisfied himself that certain features of the transaction were not dubious, but that did not mean that the features were dubious'.

Tang, who had acted for the parties previously, said he had 'not been on such guard as he would have been if this was the first time he acted for them'.

However, the tribunal identified 'red flags' that 'merited further investigation and enquiry'. 

The tribunal said it was not within Tang's remit to advise Ms FA, a third party part-funding the transaction, to seek independent financial advice - 'but, as he accepted, he should have advised her to [seek] independent legal advice'. He did not take unfair advantage of her, the tribunal said.

Tang admitted he lodged an application to register a charge on the property without Ms FA's written consent when he 'ought to have known' this was required.

The tribunal said Tang 'appeared to have fallen into a trap where he failed to distinguish between the personal and professional when he was doing business with a family with whom he was acquainted'.

The tribunal found that Tang made an error in the way he completed a MGO1-particulars of a mortgage charge form. 'The tribunal accepted that this was a genuine mistake but having made the mistake and knowing that he had made the mistake the respondent did not rectify it or advise TP Ltd of the error and what could be done to rectify it,' the judgment states.

In mitigation, Tang 'acknowledged that this was not a shining example of his work' and that he had been far too "sloppy" in his approach'. The 'minimal' harm caused was 'due to luck and not the respondent's judgement', the tribunal said, assessing the conduct to be 'at the higher end of moderately serious'.

Counsel for Tang argued that the SRA's claim for £34,760 costs was 'manifestly excessive for a one transaction case', reminding the tribunal 'that costs should not be a penalty and if they were disproportionately larger than the sanction they could be seen as a penalty'.

However, the tribunal concluded the allegations were properly brought. Tang was ordered to pay a £7,500 fine and £32,469 costs.

Tang has been approached for comment.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Solicitor fined £7.5k - with four times that in costs

£700 a day offered to build lawyer-free court

Contractors developing the new online court are to be paid up to £700 a day, the government has revealed. The figure is stated as the maximum the Ministry of Justice will be prepared to pay in a request for bids posted on the government procurement website. It also reveals that the work is 'outside IR35', meaning that contractors will not have income tax deducted at source.

HM Judiciary has announced that the online court pilot will begin in July. According to the notice, the Civil Money Claims project will 'facilitate new processes in the civil court delivering a digital by default solution. It will allow many civil claims to be dealt with online without legal representation and will introduce a new way of issuing and defending claims in the civil court coupled with a move from face to face hearings to telephone/virtual hearings where appropriate'.

It adds: 'The project will make use of new and innovative technology to encourage and support parties to reach resolution earlier in the civil claims procedure.'

To help carry out the current phase and plan the next phase, the ministry is looking for three teams of consultants to work at its headquarters in Petty France, London. Each team will consist of two 'front-end' and two 'back-end' developers. Contractors must will have a minimum of three years' experience including 'working in blended, multi-discipline, multivendor team environments focused on meeting user needs using agile methodologies'. 

The expected contract length is two years. According to specialist website IT Jobswatch the median London rate for an IT consultant is £475 a day.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

£700 a day offered to build lawyer-free court

Intervened PI firm snapped up by high street consolidator

A Manchester firm’s book of cases was bought by a consolidator two days before regulators moved in to shut it down over suspicions of dishonesty, the Gazette can reveal. 

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal yesterday confirmed the intervention into personal injury specialist Clinch Solicitors and its principal Andrew Paul Clinch. The intervention notices state there was reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of Clinch and regulators moved to protect existing clients.

The Gazette understands that the firm was subject to a takeover from Metamorph Law on Monday, with the knowledge and consent of the SRA.

The deal included a book of existing and ongoing cases, subject to client consent to transfer, and the rights to the Clinch Solicitors name and brand. Some operational staff have joined Metamorph and are working from its Sale premises.

Metamorph chief executive Simon Goldhill said: ‘The intervention happened after our deal completed and does not affect us or our business, including the cases we acquired from the former Clinch Solicitors.’

Nottinghamshire firm Shacklocks LLP has been appointed as intervening agent for the affairs of Clinch Solicitors, which was based in Princess Street in Manchester city centre.

In December 2011 local media reported that the firm was posting £500,000 annual turnover and was looking to expand. Its website claimed to be ‘specialist no win, no fee solicitors’ handling personal injury, RTA and accident at work claims.

Metamorph announced plans two years ago to acquire 60 high street law firms within five years. In March it recruited a team of 23 lawyers and support staff from the private client section of southern England firm Bernard Chill & Axtell. This followed the acquisition of Shropshire-based SLC Solicitors and last year the takeover of troubled north west firm Linder Myers.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Intervened PI firm snapped up by high street consolidator

Nottingham student-run law centre enters commercial market

Nottingham Law School has expanded its 'teaching law firm', this time allowing students to offer free guidance for charities, businesses and entrepreneurs.

Students will be guided by supervising solicitors who will provide advice on topics including choosing the right business structure, understanding how to comply with employment law and protecting intellectual property rights.

The Legal Advice Centre is regulated as an alternative business structure by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. It was set up in 2015 giving students the opportunity to provide legal pro bono advice but the upgrade to the commercial arm will allow students to work with businesses. The commercial arm was launched on 19 May.

Nick Johnson, director of the legal advice centre, said: ‘The number of people in self-employment is growing, as is the number of small to medium sized businesses, and legal costs can take a significant amount out of what may only be a small budget.

‘This new service offers affordable access to initial legal advice on a whole range of topics, while also giving our students valuable commercial skills and experience.’

Professor Janine Griffiths-Baker, dean of Nottingham Law School, added: “The acquisition of an ABS licence has allowed the centre to expand and while our main focus is still pro bono, we’re now able to offer additional services for a small charge – with any profit going back into the work of the centre.”

Earlier this year, the Gazettereported that law students were being encouraged to offer their services as paid McKenzie friends, under an initiative set up by a law undergraduate and supported by BPP Law School and the University of Westminster.

The online platform, called McKenzie Marketplace, claims to provide students with ‘paid in-court legal work experience’. It was set up by Fraser Matcham, a law student at the University of Westminster.

However, the universities later distanced themselves from the project claiming they supported students coming up with their own initiatives but had given no official backing.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Nottingham student-run law centre enters commercial market

Gateley PLC earmarks expansion after 14% profit increase

Half-year profits are expected to increase by 14% at the UK’s only full-service listed law firm. Gateley PLC told the London Stock Exchange today that adjusted profit before tax, for the six months ending 30 April, has risen from £12.9m to £14.7m.

Over the same period, revenue for the group will be no less than £77m, up from £67m recorded over the same period in 2015/16.

The figures were revealed as the practice marks two years since it become the first existing firm to take advantage of the Legal Services Act allowing firms to seek external funding and float on the stock market.

The announcement states that the firm’s results provide a platform for further expansion of the group, having exceeded management expectations. Gateley bought Birmingham-based property consultancy Hamer Associates last year. It also acquired a tax incentives advisory business.

Mike Ward, chief executive of Gateley, said: ’I am delighted with the continued progress made by the group in the year. This represents another year of expansion for us. This has been possible due to the strength of our service offering, the depth of our client relationships and the growth in our teams of skilled professionals.’

The group results for the year are expected to be announced in mid-July.

Earlier this month, Ward admitted he was surprised no other firm had followed Gateley in going public, although he stressed it had not been an easy process.

From trading at 99p per share two years ago, shares today reached a new record high of 170.5p per share.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Gateley PLC earmarks expansion after 14% profit increase

Defendant firms named in £126m credit hire 'conspiracy' action

Seven rate surveyors who fabricated evidence to argue down credit hire compensation claims have been found in contempt of court.

The High Court today found seven employees of defunct survey company Autofocus Limited had each engaged in conduct which interfered with the due administration of justice. They now face prison after committing ‘perjury on an industrial scale’.

It also emerged in the judgment that three firms of solicitors are among the defendants in related proceedings in the commercial court for a claim worth more than £126m.

The three firms - Keoghs, Lyons Davidson and Morgan Cole (since merged with Blake Lapthorn) - are alleged to have 'conspired and/or combined with' Autofocus 'with the sole or predominant intention to injure or cause financial loss to those businesses operating in the credit-car hire industry’.

The defendants in the commercial court proceedings are said to have embarked upon 'concerted action' with an intention to use unlawful means by creating, producing and deploying false and misleading expert evidence at trial in order to reduce the amount owed to insurers.

The Gazette has contacted all three firms for comment.

The claimant in the contempt case, claims management company Accident Exchange Limited, estimated that 30,000 cases were affected by the defendants signing false statements of truth after making rates reports for credit hire claims. The dishonest actions of Autofocus and the defendants had serious implications for the value of shares of Accident Exchange, and led to substantial losses which in turn meant 300 employees were made redundant.

Stephen Evans, chief executive of Automotive and Insurance Solutions Group plc (formerly Accident Exchange Group plc), told the court the Autofocus fraud 'resulted in a large volume of appellate litigation that was necessary in order to expose the deceit and to resolve the number of cases determined on a false premise at first instance'.

The Autofocus defendants - Nathan Broom, Elaine Walker, Andrew Watts, David James, Laurence Gray, Keel Broom and Duncan Sadler - each produced written surveys, reports and/or witness statements setting out details of alleged telephone enquiries purporting to show basic hire rates. In some cases each of the defendants went to court to argue why claimed credit hire rates were too high, but they had failed to do the necessary checks on what rates should be.

Estimates studied in a sample of cases were found to be false and proof the defendants had committed contempt.

In Accident Exchange Ltd v Broom & Ors, the Honourable Mr Justice Supperstone said: 'The evidence that [Autofocus] was involved in the systematic, endemic fabrication of evidence in which the defendants and each of them knowingly and actively participated throughout the material time is overwhelming.'

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Defendant firms named in £126m credit hire 'conspiracy' action

'Forget HIPs': conveyancers push digital home reports

Digital home reports will save time for everyone involved in the homebuying process, says a trade association encouraged by what it claims are 'noises' about reform being made in the run-up to the election. 

The Conveyancing Association, which claims to represent firms handling 20% of property transactions in England and Wales, said it talk about the return of notorious home information packs is 'something of a red herring'. No one in the industry wants to see the packs, scrapped in 2010, resurrected, it stressed.

However, chair Eddie Goldsmith said a 'digital-home report' could save lots of time 'and put stakeholders on the front foot before a property is even marketed'. 

Last year the association mooted the use of 'skinny electronic home reports' in its own reform manifesto for reform.

The association is also keen to see binding offers, which would allow home-movers to have certainty that the purchase deal is binding within a week. This would be similar to the reservation agreements already in place for the purchase of property. It would involve an affordable deposit being put down by the purchaser. An insurance policy could potentially be taken out by the seller so the purchaser's expenses are covered if the seller withdraws.

The association believes a binding offer is achievable providing the purchaser has upfront information and can secure a binding decision-in-principle (DIP) on the mortgage.

Other areas the association is working on include an enhanced ID verification and a secure portal for the conveyancing process that would include a 'property log book' for each property.

Goldsmith said: 'We believe it is, without doubt, the right time to completely move away from [a] conveyancing process which is in no way fit for consumers. The technology is clearly there to provide an end-to-end digital conveyancing service and to deliver greater certainty via the provision of upfront information, and the use of binding mortgage and binding offers on property.'

He highlighted the 'fast and efficient' digital conveyancing service in parts of Australia, where a buyer can sign a contract immediately if they like the property.

The association is 'greatly encouraged by the noises being made by various political parties' on necessary changes to the process.

Goldsmith said: 'As we approach the general election, we are urging whichever party (or parties) forms the next government to consult with the industry, so that we might feed our extensive knowledge and understanding of how the process can be improved into delivering in this area.'

Let's block ads! (Why?)

'Forget HIPs': conveyancers push digital home reports

'Forget HIPs': association pushes digital home reports

Digital home reports will save everyone involved in the home buying process time, a trade association said today, encouraged by what it claims are 'noises' about reform being made in the run-up to the election. 

The Conveyancing Association, which claims to represent the firms handling 20% of property transactions in England and Wales, said it believes talk about the return of home information packs is 'something of a red herring'. No one in the industry wants to see the packs, scrapped in 2010, return.

However, chair Eddie Goldsmith said, a 'digital-home report' could save lots of time 'and put stakeholders on the front foot before a property is even marketed'. This report would be available to prospective buyers when the property is marketed.

The association mooted the use of 'skinny electronic home reports' in a manifesto for conveyancing reform last year.

The association is also keen to see binding offers, which would allow home movers to have certainty that the purchase deal is binding within a week. This would be similar to the reservation agreements already in place for the purchase of property. It would involve an affordable deposit being put down by the purchaser. An insurance policy could potentially be taken out by the seller so the purchaser's expenses are covered if the seller withdraws.

The association believes a binding offer is achievable providing the purchaser has upfront information and can secure a binding decision-in-principle (DIP) on the mortgage.

Other areas the association is working on include an enhanced ID verification and a secure portal for the conveyancing process that would include a 'property log book' for each property.

Goldsmith said: 'We believe it is, without doubt, the right time to completely move away from the century conveyancing process which is in no way fit for century consumers. The technology is clearly there to provide an end-to-end digital conveyancing service and to deliver greater certainty via the provision of upfront information, and the use of binding mortgage and binding offers on property.'

He highlighted the 'fast and efficient' digital conveyancing service in parts of Australia, where a buyer can sign a contract immediately if they like the property.

The association is 'greatly encouraged by the noises being made by various political parties' on necessary changes to the process.

Goldsmith said: 'As we approach the general election, we are urging whichever party (or parties) forms the next government to consult with the industry, so that we might feed our extensive knowledge and understanding of how the process can be improved into delivering in this area.'

Let's block ads! (Why?)

'Forget HIPs': association pushes digital home reports