SRA chief: ABS best placed to meet consumers' 'one-stop' demands

mardi 28 février 2017

The SRA’s policy director has insisted that alternative business structures are still the best way to reach out to consumers wanting a holistic approach to professional advice.

Crispin Passmore said research shows ABSs to be more innovative than both regular law firms and entities from other professions in providing the solutions clients need.

Speaking at an event to mark the 25th anniversary of the financial advisory body SIFA, Passmore said the people and businesses that use legal services want more tailored services and would prefer a ‘one-stop solution’ for all their needs.

He added: ‘Whether it be legal, financial, accountancy, or business support. People and businesses don’t mind who provides the solution, as long as it’s the right solution and is affordable.’

He pointed to research showing that fewer than one in 10 people or small businesses instruct a solicitor or barrister to deal with their legal needs, and suggested businesses are more likely to call their accountant for legal advice than their lawyer.

Passmore said ABSs have allowed external capital and expertise into legal services and have proved to be more innovative than all other types of competition with traditional firms. 

‘One thing we are learning about the modern market is that people find it difficult to characterise whether their problem is legal, financial, business or whether it is even solvable,’ he added. ‘People don’t fit into neat compartments. So we are seeing firms taking an increasingly holistic approach to problem solving. And many law firms benefit from the expertise and specialism of financial advisers, accountants and others.’

The SRA, he said, will try to facilitate this process and is also still keen to allow solicitors to practice from non-regulated firms, which he predicted could be introduced ‘within the next couple of years’.

This month sees the fifth anniversary of the first ABS receiving a licence from the Solicitors Regulation Authority. Hundreds of businesses have since made successful applications, but there are signs that the rate of entities wanting to become an ABS has slowed. This year to date has seen just five new additions to the SRA’s register of alternative business structures – less than half the number added in the same period last year.

The SRA has taken steps to improve the application process since the earliest registrations, but some doubt the other professions really want to fully commit to the provision of legal services.

In an interview with the Gazette this week, Andrew Hosking, head of professional services at insolvency specialist Quantuma, said the prospect of a large accountancy or advisory practice joining with a law firm would ‘economic suicide’ as the ability to attract referral work from other firms, clients and institutions would be compromised.

On large accountancy firms taking market share, Hosking was also sceptical, adding: ‘I wonder how many top 25 legal practices in the UK would refer work to such a firm’s accountants knowing they will have their own law practice work on it.’

Let's block ads! (Why?)

SRA chief: ABS best placed to meet consumers' 'one-stop' demands

Expanding law firm still hunting for ABS opportunities

A law firm owned by a stock exchange-listed company has repeated its pledge to create more joint ventures with new entrants later this year.

NewLaw, owned by listed entity Redde PLC, said today it expects applications to set up further alternative business structures with additional partners to come to fruition in the latter part of 2017.

The firm had said it wanted to open more ABSs in Redde’s announcement to the London Stock Exchange this time last year, but has yet to make any further moves.

Optimism has been in short supply among legal services providers that trade on the stock exchange. Australian firm Slater and Gordon is going through a difficult period, with a shrinking share value, multi-million-pound losses and a 20% reduction in staff numbers. Fairpoint PLC has suffered a steep drop in its share price and has warned shareholders that results for 2016 were likely to be below expectations.

However the only firm in the UK to float in its own right, Gateley PLC, has performed much better, with its share price steadily rising and profits increasing significantly.

NewLaw, headquartered in Cardiff, has existing partnerships with the likes of doctors’ union the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Nursing, and receives legal work from these organisations.

In its interim results for the six months ending 31 December 2016, Redde said NewLaw had continued to build its range of services and pursue new opportunities.

Investment has been made in the employment law practice and private client practice dealing with wills, probate and trusts.

The firm has reduced its reliance on personal injury claims from RTAs, mindful of the forthcoming reforms of the sector, and has instead increased headcount in employers’ liability and medical negligence departments.

Redde said: ‘These proposed changes would have an impact on the profit costs of the group’s legal businesses and/or increase the cost of recovering credit charges.

‘The group is mitigating against these possible changes in its personal injury legal practice by participating in this consultation [and] by (for some time) diversifying towards a greater volume of significant injury cases which would not be affected to the same extent by these proposed changes.’

The PLC, which also offers accident management services, said its profit before tax increased 13.8% to £19.7m over the reporting period, with revenues up 37.5% to £227.1m.

A dividend of 5p per share is payable on 30 March, up from 4.5p per share paid in March 2016.

Redde's share price dropped marginally to 173.25p per share following the results announcement.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Expanding law firm still hunting for ABS opportunities

Government to appeal judges’ pension ruling

The government is to challenge the employment tribunal’s decision that transitional pension arrangements for 210 judges amount to unlawful age discrimination, the Gazette has learned.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal has received a notice of appeal in relation to The Lord Chancellor and Ministry of Justice v Ms V McCloud & Others and Mr N Mostyn & Others.

In a grounds of appeal document, counsel for the lord chancellor state that the tribunal ‘erred’ in its approach to the issues which it determined, and did not address all of the issues before it. In particular, the tribunal failed to consider and determine the government’s ‘material factor defence’.

The document refers to an employment tribunal judgment given this month in relation to a claim made by members of the Fire Brigades Union, who sought to challenge transitional provisions of their pension scheme.

The document states: ‘The ET found, on substantially the same evidence as was before employment judge [Stuart] Williams in this case, that the transitional provisions were a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim and dismissed the claims for age discrimination, equal pay and sex and race discrimination.’

Six High Court judges, including Sir Rabinder Singh, were among 210 claimants who challenged the lord chancellor and the ministry over the transitional pension provisions.

Solicitor Shah Qureshi, of London firm Bindmans, representing the High Court judges, told the Gazette: ‘We are disappointed that the government has decided to appeal what we view as a clear and precise judgment.

‘It would have been better served to address the discriminatory impact of these reforms on younger judges, ethnic minorities and women.’

Addressing the question of who can properly determine the appeal, counsel for the lord chancellor say the issues in the case potentially affect all judges who were appointed to a salaried position before 1 April 2012, or who sat in an eligible fee-paid post for the purposes of the fee-paid judicial pension scheme from 1 April 2012 and were appointed to a salaried position before 1 April 2015.

The document states that the government will shortly lay before parliament regulations intended to equalise the pension provision of fee-paid judges with that of salaried judges.

Those potentially affected include: all judges who had retired from a salaried position before 1 April 2015 and who now sit as a fee-paid judge in retirement; all judges who were members of previous judicial pension schemes who reached the maximum service cap of 20 years prior to 1 April 2015 and who now sit as fee-paid judges; and all those who sat in an eligible fee-paid post for the purposes of the fee-paid judicial pension scheme from 1 April 2012.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Government to appeal judges’ pension ruling

£1.1m compensation for prisoners over parole delays

A National Audit Office investigation shows that prisoners have received £1.1m in compensation as a result of delayed parole hearings, as the Parole Board turns to technology to help clear a significant backlog of cases.

The Parole Board is an independent body that risk-assesses prisoners to decide if they can be safely released into the community.

An NAO report published today states that the Parole Board conducted 7,148 oral hearings in 2015-16. A third of listed oral hearings were deferred in the year to September 2016. At the peak of the board’s backlog, in January 2015, there was an average of 3,163 outstanding cases. 

The growing backlog has been attributed to a Supreme Court ruling in October 2013, which broadened the circumstances in which the law requires the board to hold an oral hearing, with fairness to the prisoner being the overriding factor.

Prisoners who experience delays can claim compensation under the Human Rights Act once their case is concluded. They can claim at a rate of around £50 per month of delays if they are turned down for parole. If they are released following a delay, they can claim at a rate of around £650 per month.

In 2015-16, the board received 463 private law damages claims, up from 89 in 2014-15.

Since 2011-12, the board has paid out £1.1m in compensation for delayed hearings. A further breakdown shows that prisoners were paid £554,000 in compensation in 2015-16, compared with £87,000 in 2012-13.

The report states: 'As the board attempts to reduce the backlog of outstanding cases, it will crystallise its liability for an increased number of potential compensation claims, and compensation costs may increase.

'In its 2015-16 accounts, the board included a provision for £343,000 relating to known legal claims where these could be reliably estimated and which it expects it would have to pay out in the future.’

The Parole Board welcomed today’s report.

Professor Nick Hardwick, chair, said: 'I am pleased the NAO has recognised the huge challenges the Parole Board faced as it dealt with more cases and more oral hearings with fewer Parole Board members. As a result, the backlog of outstanding cases grew, with unacceptable delays for victims and prisoners. Given the scale of the challenge it has taken time to put things right.’

Last year ministers approved the appointment of 104 Parole Board members following a major recruitment drive last year. Of the new recruits, 49 started in the current financial year; the remainder will start in 2017/18. The new members include seven psychiatrists and 20 psychologists.

Parole Board chief executive Martin Jones said the Parole Board’s digital project to have paperless hearings by October will help the body to run more efficiently.

Jones added: 'The majority of our members have transitioned from paper to digital working, saving the board time and money. The backlog at present is 2,030 cases, down over a third from its high point of 3,163 cases in 2015, and we are on track to eradicate the delays by the end of the year.’

A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said the department is working hard to reduce the backlog of cases involving IPP [imprisonment for public protection] prisoners. 'We have set up a new unit to tackle this issue and are working with the Parole Board to improve the efficiency of the process,’ the spokesperson added.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

£1.1m compensation for prisoners over parole delays

‘Cash for crash’ trio convicted after judge decides case without jury

Two men who helped to stage a ‘cash for crash’ accident have been convicted of manslaughter after one of their victims died following the collision.

Sabir Hussain and Raja Hussain were each found guilty of manslaughter and conspiracy to commit fraud by false representation. A third man, Shahrear Islam Miah, was convicted of the second offence but cleared of manslaughter.

R v Hussain and Others, held at Leeds Crown Court, was almost unprecedented as it was completed without a jury: the judge had dismissed jurors after approaches were made to them and bribes offered when the building was evacuated following a fire alarm set off during proceedings.

On 22 February, Mr Justice Goss was part way through his summing up when he applied the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to proceed without a jury. It is believed to be only the second time a judge has taken this course in a Crown court trial.

Goss said there had been a ‘concerted attempt to tamper with the jury’, with approaches made to five of them by at least two people. One juror also revealed he had been approached as soon as he arrived at court last week.

In his judgment, the judge stressed he ignored the attempts to influence the outcome of the trial for the purposes of his verdicts and did not hold it against any of the defendants.

The court heard the two-car collision that led to the charges was in September 2014 in the Beeston area of Leeds. The front-seat passenger in one car, 88-year-old Betty Laird, died the same day from injuries suffered in the crash. The driver of the car, Geoffrey Grimshaw, died a few days later but not as a result of the crash.

The court heard the defendants had spied an opportunity to stage a crash as the victims’ car turned right across their lane ahead of them.

Sabir Hussain, 25, was alleged to be the driver of the other vehicle, with Raja Hussain, 31, accepting he was the front-seat passenger. Miah, 26, was a rear-seat passenger.

A fourth man, Mohammed Ubaidullah, claimed at the time of the collision to be the driver but later said that was a lie and he was in fact sitting behind the driver.

Ubaidullah pleaded guilty in June last year to the manslaughter of Betty Laird and conspiracy to commit fraud by false representations.

The court heard Ubaidullah had been seeking compensation for a false injury as it was ‘easy and a financial gain’. The car used in the crash was bought and insured less than a week before it was staged.

The court heard the victims’ car had been turning right across oncoming traffic when it was in a collision with the defendants’ car. Ubaidullah gave evidence in court that a front passenger in his car had said ‘there’s a chance; go, go, go’ seconds before the collision.

The court heard Sabir Hussain was involved in two collisions, one either side of Betty Laird’s death, in which claims were made for personal injuries when none appeared to have been sustained. Miah had a similar history with regard to making claims following a collision in which he was the driver.

Goss said there was evidence of both Sabir Hussain and Miah being involved in deliberate collisions to make false insurance claims, around the time of the crash at the centre of the trial.

He concluded that the collision in September 2014 was an unlawful act that carried the foreseeable risk that some injury might be caused, and in fact caused the death of Betty Laird. Miah was cleared of manslaughter as the judge could not be sure he was in the car at the time of the collision.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

‘Cash for crash’ trio convicted after judge decides case without jury

Environmental groups challenge lifting of cost cap

Three environmental activist groups have applied to the High Court for permission to challenge new costs rules for environmental cases such as actions over air pollution. From today, automatic caps on costs for judicial reviews brought under the 2001 Aarhus Convention, a UN measure guaranteeing access to justice in environmental matters, are lifted under an amendment to the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR).

The costs cap, of £5,000 for claims brought by individuals and £10,000 for those brought by organisations and public bodies, was introduced in 2013 following court decisions that challenges to environmental decisions must not be prohibitively expensive.

However a change to the CPR coming into effect today allows the cap to be lifted for environmental judicial reviews brought under the Aarhus Convention in England and Wales. 

In a statement, the Ministry of Justice said: 'The cost of bringing environmental challenges must not be prohibitively expensive and our changes will ensure that individuals are not expected to pay legal costs above their means. Legal aid remains available for these cases.'

James thornton

Environmental law firm ClientEarth, Friends of the Earth and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds say the change will make it virtually impossible to bring a public interest case to protect the environment. 'With no certainty on costs, who will put their finances, perhaps even their house, at risk to bring a case?' James Thornton, chief executive of ClientEarth said. 

ClientEarth quoted the House of Lords statutory instruments committee as reporting last week that 'as a result of the increased uncertainty introduced by these changes, people with a genuine complaint will be discouraged from pursuing it in the courts'.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has tabled an early day motion, signed by five colleagues, calling for the change in the CPR to be annulled. 

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Environmental groups challenge lifting of cost cap

Insurers hit by share price falls in aftermath of discount decision

Insurance companies took a hit in the aftermath of the lord chancellor’s decision to recalculate the rate at which personal injury settlements are discounted, with share prices falling amidst profit warnings.

Direct Line's share price lost 7.16% in value, ending the day trading at 338.5p a share.

The group had estimated that the government’s decision to cut the rate from 2.5% to minus 0.75% for personal injury compensation would reduce profit before tax for 2016 by between £215m and £230m after reinsurance recoveries.

The firm had previously disclosed in its 2015 annual report that its claims liabilities at that time were calculated using a discount rate of 1.5%.

Admiral, meanwhile, saw its share price fall 2.46% in value and postponed the announcement of its results for 2016 – due out this week – by a further seven days.

The company said the majority of the financial impact in respect of premiums earned during 2016 and prior years will be reflected as a one-off charge against 2016 second half profits.

The total net financial impact of all claims settling at the new rate is estimated at between £140m to £175m. The estimated net financial impact on 2016 reported profit is £70m to £100m.

Insurers’ anger at the decision, which lord chancellor Liz Truss described as the ‘only legally acceptable’ option available to her, was summed up by its representative body, the Association of British Insurers (ABI).

Huw Evans, director general of the ABI, said the government had shown an ‘utter disregard’ for the impact it would have on consumers, businesses and the wider operation of the insurance market.

‘Claims costs will soar, making it inevitable that there will be an increase in motor and liability premiums for millions of drivers and businesses across the UK,’ he said.

The ABI has revealed it will lobby for a law change on the calculation of the discount rate to be included in the Prison and Courts Bill, which was laid before parliament last week. The rate is set to change from 20 March but insurers say reform ‘cannot wait until Easter’.

The insurance lobby's argument was largely favourably covered by the media. The BBC had the story at the top of its news page for much of Monday, with the headline ‘Car insurance "set to soar" after ruling’.

The Guardian led with the NHS facing a £1bn annual bill after a ‘reckless’ change to injury payouts, while the Times taking the same angle. The Telegraph headline quoted the ABI saying the decision was ‘crazy’, while the Evening Standard said an insurance payouts shake-up would ‘land NHS with £1bn bill and hit drivers’.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Insurers hit by share price falls in aftermath of discount decision

Solicitors’ fees should not pay for LeO expansion – Law Society

lundi 27 février 2017

The Law Society has told regulators that solicitors should not fund any expansion of the complaints process to include non-regulated firms.

The Legal Ombudsman is consulting on extending its jurisdiction to investigate complaints on behalf of clients of unregulated providers.

The extension forms part of the three-year strategy published earlier this year and chimes with the recommendations of the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), which reported on the legal sector in December.

The solicitors’ representative body said it was clear that members should not subsidise a complaints scheme by LeO covering unregulated firms.

The Society said it would be ‘inappropriate and unreasonable’ for any groundwork for the extension of LeO’s powers to be funded through solicitors’ practising certificate fees.

With the CMA advocating an increase in competition and potentially more unregulated providers, the Society said there will be an increasing burden on the Legal Ombudsman.

‘Solicitors’ practising fees should not be used to subsidise work to explore new jurisdictions,’ said the response. ‘This is especially so in circumstances where the solicitors profession has funded the start-up costs of LeO.’

The Society noted that LeO’s assertion it will not be ‘explicitly expansionist’ was incongruent with efforts to extend the jurisdiction. Similarly, any attempt to revisit the idea of third parties being allowed to make complaints would appear to contradict the ombudsman’s own outlook.

The Society said it expects a full economic impact assessment if LeO is to allow small and medium-sized enterprises to complain.

The organisation vowed to work with LeO in 2017 to improve the guidance to solicitors to ensure they fulfil their regulatory and signposting requirements.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Solicitors’ fees should not pay for LeO expansion – Law Society

Further fee cuts ‘obtuse’, top legal aid firms tell MoJ

The largest criminal legal aid firms have added their weight to growing opposition to the government’s proposals to cut legal aid fees.

The Big Firms’ Group, whose 40 members carry out around 25% of criminal legal aid work, said imposing further cuts on the litigators’ graduated fee scheme (LGFS) without regard to the wider ramifications ‘is obtuse’. It urged the lord chancellor to meet with ‘all relevant stakeholders’ before imposing further cuts.

The group, in a statement on national firm Tuckers’ website, said: ‘We believe the amount spent on criminal legal aid has already fallen further and faster than the amount that the Ministry of Justice was targeting in the original Transforming Legal Aid: Next Steps consultation of September 2013.

‘Based on the research by Oxford Economics, commissioned by the Law Society, there is every reason to believe that it will continue to do so – without the need for further cuts.

‘The Ministry of Justice needs to quickly abandon the false premise that the criminal justice system is sustainable on its current course. It is not.’

The Law Society, Legal Aid Practitioners’ Group, Criminal Law Solicitors’ Association and London Criminal Courts Solicitors’ Association have already issued a joint position statement opposing the ministry’s proposals.

A second 8.75% fee cut was suspended for 12 months in April last year. However, justice minister Sir Oliver Heald said the lord chancellor was minded not to reinstate the second fee cut. This would be confirmed once the government considered the responses to the consultation, which closes on 24 March.

The ministry proposes to reduce the threshold for pages of prosecution evidence (PPE) from the current cap of 10,000 pages to 6,000 pages. It also wants to cap court appointees’ costs at legal aid rates.

The Big Firms’ Group said: ‘This latest proposal from the MoJ is targeted at a very small number of the overall cases – in a system in which many cases are already woefully underpaid and do not reflect the work that needs to be done.

‘It flies in the face of the longstanding rhetoric of the Legal Aid Agency, of solicitors having to accept a certain arbitrariness due to the “swings and roundabouts” nature of the fee structure. It ignores the wider perspectives of the already reducing spend on the criminal defence sector and the serious fissures manifesting themselves in the criminal justice system.

‘It is dishonest in its focus on the rise in high-value LGFS claims without acknowledging the corresponding savings in the [very high cost cases] spend.’

The statement added: ‘It genuinely seems as if the MoJ is deliberately trying to find the straw that will break the back of this long-suffering camel. It may have succeeded this time.’

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Further fee cuts ‘obtuse’, top legal aid firms tell MoJ

BSB: end perception of youth courts as ‘forum for advocacy practice’

Barristers should no longer use youth courts as a forum for ‘practising advocacy’ and cases should be treated as seriously as those involving adults, the barristers’ regulator has said.

The Bar Standards Board has published new guidelines for youth court advocacy as part of measures to improve standards.

The guidance, for all barristers working in youth proceedings, includes a set of essential competences expected of all advocates working with young people.

Publication follows a dispute over the wording of the guidelines, reported last week in the Gazette. Board members differed over whether the guidelines should ask advocates to ‘empathise’ and ‘understand’ clients from disadvantaged backgrounds.

Judith Farbey QC, board member and a member of Doughty Street Chambers, told the meeting that she felt ‘very strongly’ over the words ‘empathy’ and ‘understand’. ‘Empathy and understanding are not part of being a barrister,’ she said at the time, adding that it is not a barrister’s job to be empathetic.

In the BSB’s final guidelines, published on Friday, those terms were removed and replaced with a requirement to demonstrate ‘emotional intelligence’ to communicate effectively. The guidelines also encourage barristers to speak in a ‘clear and concise’ manner and use plain English.

The BSB will involve introduce compulsory registration later in the year for barristers practising in youth courts. The regulator said it believes this work is a priority, given the ‘variable standards of advocacy within the youth courts, and the vulnerability of the young people involved’.

Speaking to the Gazette, Oliver Hanmer, director of regulatory assurance at the BSB, said the regulator wanted to make ‘youth justice an area of specialism’.

‘Previously, members of the bar were going to youth courts as a place to practise advocacy and young people have been left as bystanders,’ Hanmer said.

He added that more and more serious cases were ending up at youth courts and that the level of service should be on a par with adult courts.

Hanmer added: ‘There is overwhelming support for further regulation in the interests of vulnerable young people in the justice system.

‘We believe we have devised a proportionate approach to regulation which ensures that these young people can receive the quality of advocacy that they need whilst also recognising the demands that practising in the youth courts presents.’

The guidance was recommended following a review of the youth justice system in December last year which suggested improvements to the system.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

BSB: end perception of youth courts as ‘forum for advocacy practice’

Lutfur Rahman to face SDT hearing next week

Former Tower Hamlets mayor Lutfur Rahman will face a four-day hearing at the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal charged with damaging the reputation of the legal profession.

Rahman, a family solicitor, was reported to the Solicitors Regulation Authority in April 2015 after he was found guilty of electoral fraud. Election Commissioner Richard Mawrey QC ordered Rahman to vacate his mayoral post immediately after breaches of election rules during the 2014 campaign for his re-election.

Rahman, who stood for the Tower Hamlets First party, was found personally guilty and guilty by his agents of illegal and corrupt practices.

The SRA alleges Rahman thereby failed to uphold the rule of law and the proper administration of justice, failed to act with integrity and failed to behave in a way that maintains the trust the public places in him and in the provision of legal services.

These same charges also apply to his evidence to the Election Court. This evidence attracted adverse criticism in the judgment. Rahman was described in the 200-page judgment as someone who ‘has made a successful career by ignoring or flouting the law and has relied on silencing his critics by accusations of racism and Islamophobia’.

Rahman’s case starts on 7 March and is allocated four days at the SDT. All allegations are subject to a hearing and are as yet unproven.

Rahman, who was admitted as a solicitor almost 20 years ago, is not currently practising as a solicitor. 

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Lutfur Rahman to face SDT hearing next week

Domestic violence evidence requirement removed

The Law Society has welcomed the government’s decision to remove a time limit for evidence that will make it easier for domestic violence victims to qualify for legal aid.

The Ministry of Justice confirmed that, after reviewing current evidence arrangements for accessing legal aid in private family cases, the current five-year time limit will be removed completely.

The types of evidence that can be accepted will also be ‘significantly broadened’. In future, the ministry says evidence will be accepted from domestic violence support organisations, removing difficulties faced by victims in acquiring evidence.

A Law Society spokesperson said: ‘Legal aid is a lifeline for those who have suffered abuse. It is often the only way someone can bring their case before the courts.

‘Relaxing time and evidence restrictions so more victims of domestic violence can get legal aid for court hearings will be a welcome relief for many people. Today’s positive decision is the end result of work we and other organisations have been doing with the MoJ for many months.’

The news was welcomed by campaigners who, with the support of Chancery Lane, fought rules introduced in April 2013 that required victims of domestic violence to provide a prescribed form of evidence to apply for family law legal aid.

Some of the forms of evidence had been subject to a 24-month time limit, despite the fact that perpetrators may remain a lifelong threat.

Last year the ministry relaxed the evidence requirement, more than doubling the original time limit.

Rights of Women director Estelle du Boulay said the ministry’s announcement was a victory for women and common sense. 

Du Boulay said: ‘The current rules are so restrictive that they fail to assist a large number of victims – the majority of whom are women. Our evidence showed that up to 40% of women could not meet the requirements.

‘It is important not to forget however that we and others warned of these problems before the new rules were introduced. We are hopeful that these changes signal a renewed commitment from government to address the broader landscape of domestic violence provision more proactively.’

The ministry today also published the findings of its research into alleged perpetrators of abuse as litigants in person in private family law.

Judges raised concerns that employing practices such as relaying questions to vulnerable witnesses on behalf of a litigant in person could lead to questions about their impartiality.

Access to screens to separate the parties and video-links to enable evidence to be given from outside court were perceived as inadequate or inconsistent.

The report suggests further training and guidance for the judiciary in managing such cases should be considered, ‘particularly in relation to exploring the potential for developing a more inquisitorial approach’.

There is also scope for ‘closer collaboration’ by the court and judiciary with external organisations.

A long-awaited prisons and courts bill published today states that the lord chancellor will end the cross-examination of domestic violence victims by their alleged abusive ex-partners in the family courts.

Welcoming the change, the Society spokesperson said: ‘The family court process should help the truth come out, it should not provide a platform for a perpetrator to compound their abuse.

‘In the family courts, the victim of abuse is a party to the case. They have to engage with the abuse throughout the proceedings and we think there is more work to be done to ensure that the protection for victims is adequate.

‘We look forward to working with the government so that the new measures achieve the aim we all have of protecting victims of abuse.’

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Domestic violence evidence requirement removed

MoJ confirms hike in probate fees

The Ministry of Justice has confirmed a massive overhaul in probate charges, which will see some estates charged up to £20,000. From May this year, subject to parliamentary approval, the MoJ is planning to introduce a sliding scale of charges for probate fees to replace the current flat fees. 

Current probate fees are £215, or £155 for those applying through a solicitor. On the new scale, estates worth between £1.6m and £2m will be charged £12,000, while below £50,000 will be exempt from charges. Estates worth between £50,000 and £300,000 will pay £300.

The ministry said the 'fairer, banded system' will mean more than half of estates will pay nothing and 92% will pay no more than £1,000. However some estates will pay more than 129 times the current level. 'Fees are necessary to maintain an accessible, world-leading justice system which puts the needs of victims and vulnerable people first,’ the spokesperson added.

In February last year, the Gazettereported that the MoJ was planning the increases as part of its plans to raise an extra £250m a year to fund the courts and tribunal service. The Law Society expressed criticism of the proposals, saying they could encourage more people to undertake probate themselves rather than instruct a solicitor.

It added: ‘It is unfair and discriminatory to expect the bereaved to fund/subsidise other parts of the court and tribunals service.

'Court fees are a necessary source of funding but should not be charged over and above the cost of the specific service.’

National firm Irwin Mitchell pointed out that, of 831 respondents to the MoJ’s consultation on the charges, less than 2% were in favour. Sarah Phillips, partner, said the changes amounted to a ‘new form of taxation’.

Probate is a largely administrative function, for which fees up to £20,000 are 'quite disproportionate', she said. The change could lead to older people feeling obliged to give away assets in their lifetime, to avoid the charges, she said.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

MoJ confirms hike in probate fees

Slater and Gordon writes down value of UK business by £216m

Revenues at embattled firm Slater and Gordon dropped 34% year on year as the firm continued to show few signs of recovery, interim results revealed today.

The Australia-listed firm, which was forced to restructure its UK operations last year, posted total revenue of less than £200m in the six months ended 31 December 2016 – down from £300m in the same period of 2015.

The firm still recorded half-year losses of £262m, which was said to equal net losses of £22.5m excluding non-recurring costs. The results were heavily impacted by a £216m ‘impairment charge’ which effectively wrote down value in the UK business.

The results will do little to persuade investors that the business can remain viable, and the firm admitted that its ability to continue as a going concern relies on the continued support of its lenders.

The group has presented revised financial forecasts to lenders and their financial advisers covering the period up to June 2020, together with a number of recapitalisation options. Slater and Gordon’s board said it has ‘reason to believe that a successful outcome will be concluded in the coming months’, although a majority of lenders by value must agree to a satisfactory recapitalisation plan by 26 May.

Lending provided under a syndicated facility agreement made in December means the company has borrowings of more than £450m, more than half of which (around £260m) is repayable in May 2018.

Meanwhile, the cloud of a potential group action from shareholders relating to the disastrous acquisition of Quindell’s professional services division continues to hang over the firm, with a deadline of 19 June to issue court proceedings or settle the claims.

Slater and Gordon reported underperformance across its UK and Australia operations in relation to the resolution of personal injury claims.

SGL UK was said to have ‘continued to underperform’ during the second half of 2016 due to the disruption caused by the transformation activity, staff turnover and the impact of ‘negative sentiment’ on the business.

Slater and Gordon group managing director Andrew Grech said the results reflected a business ‘still very much in the midst of a major transition’.

‘While we have made progress in the UK in the past 12 months, the turnaround is taking longer than we anticipated and billed revenue performance in segments of the business is lower than expected,’ he said. ‘The full impact of the performance improvement initiatives will take time. Slater Gordon Solutions delivered positive earning and operating cashflow.’

The company faces the additional headache of government reforms of the personal injury sector, unveiled last week.

Slater and Gordon Solutions did indeed turn a £15m loss the previous year into a £5.7m profit, although the rest of the UK business continued to suffer losses, albeit reduced by 29.4% to £4.4m. Revenues at SGL UK fell 34.6% to £47m, while revenues at SGS dropped almost 40% to £87m.

Much of the bold ambition and attempts to ensure maximum market reach appear to have gone: while its early years after arriving in the UK were characterised by expansion, the firm has instead ceased operations at 18 out of 48 sites in the past six months and reduced headcount by 20%.

Slater and Gordon shares fell by 22% on the news, closing at A$0.125 (8p). 

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Slater and Gordon writes down value of UK business by £216m

Truss slashes discount rate but warns of impact on NHS

Lord chancellor Liz Truss today announced that the discount rate applied to personal injury compensation payments will be slashed to -0.75%.

The new rate, reduced from the current 2.5%, comes into effect on 20 March. It is the first amendment to the rate since 2001.

The news will be welcomed by campaigners for personal injury claimants who stand to receive substantially more compensation.

But Truss has admitted the new rate will have a significant impact on insurers and a knock-on effect on public services with large personal injury liabilities – particularly the NHS.

The rate sets how much compensation payments should be adjusted to reflect the interest that claimants can expect to earn by investing it.

In finalising the compensation amount, courts apply a calculation called the Discount Rate – with the percentage linked in law to returns on the lowest risk investments, typically Index-Linked Gilts.

Truss said the law makes clear that claimants must be treated as risk averse investors, reflecting the fact that they are financially dependent on this lump sum, often for long periods or the duration of their life.

Compensation awards using the rate should put the claimant in the same financial position had they not been injured, including loss of future earnings and care costs.

Truss (pictured) added: ‘The law is absolutely clear - as lord chancellor, I must make sure the right rate is set to compensate claimants. I am clear that this is the only legally acceptable rate I can set.’

In an announcement to the London stock exchange today, the government confirmed that chancellor Philip Hammond will meet with the insurance industry to discuss how it will manage the change.

The government is committed to ensuring the NHS Litigation Authority has ‘appropriate funding’ to cover changes to hospitals’ clinical negligence costs, as well as finding to meet additional costs to GPs.

The government will open a consultation in the coming weeks to consider whether there is a better or fairer framework for claimants and defendants, with any necessary legislation to be brought forward at an early stage.

The consultation, which will be launched before Easter, will consider options for reform – including whether the rate should in future be set by an independent body; whether more frequent reviews would improve predictability and certainty for all parties; and whether the methodology is appropriate for the future.

Huw Evans, director general of the Association of British Insurers, said the decision was ‘crazy’ and warned there will ‘inevitably’ be increases in motor and liability premiums.

He added: 'Cutting the discount rate to -0.75% from 2.5% is a crazy decision by Liz Truss. Claims costs will soar, making it inevitable that there will be an increase in motor and liability premiums for millions of drivers and businesses across the UK. We estimate that up to 36m individual and business motor insurance policies could be affected in order to over-compensate a few thousand claimants a year. 

'To make such a significant change to the rate using a broken formula is reckless in the extreme, and shows an utter disregard for the impact this will have on consumers, businesses and the wider operation of the insurance market.'

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Truss slashes discount rate but warns of impact on NHS

Truss slashes discount rate but warns of impact for NHS

Lord chancellor Liz Truss today announced that the discount rate applied to personal injury compensation payments will be slashed to -0.75%.

The new rate, reduced from the current 2.5%, comes into effect on 20 March. It is the first amendment to the rate since 2001.

The news will be welcomed by campaigners for personal injury claimants who stand to receive substantially more compensation.

But Truss has admitted the new rate will have a significant impact on insurers and a knock-on effect on public services with large personal injury liabilities – particularly the NHS.

The rate sets how much compensation payments should be adjusted to reflect the interest that claimants can expect to earn by investing it.

In finalising the compensation amount, courts apply a calculation called the Discount Rate – with the percentage linked in law to returns on the lowest risk investments, typically Index-Linked Gilts.

Truss said the law makes clear that claimants must be treated as risk averse investors, reflecting the fact that they are financially dependent on this lump sum, often for long periods or the duration of their life.

Compensation awards using the rate should put the claimant in the same financial position had they not been injured, including loss of future earnings and care costs.

Truss (pictured) added: ‘The law is absolutely clear - as lord chancellor, I must make sure the right rate is set to compensate claimants. I am clear that this is the only legally acceptable rate I can set.’

In an announcement to the London stock exchange today, the government confirmed that chancellor Philip Hammond will meet with the insurance industry to discuss how it will manage the change.

The government is committed to ensuring the NHS Litigation Authority has ‘appropriate funding’ to cover changes to hospitals’ clinical negligence costs, as well as finding to meet additional costs to GPs.

The government will open a consultation in the coming weeks to consider whether there is a better or fairer framework for claimants and defendants, with any necessary legislation to be brought forward at an early stage.

The consultation, which will be launched before Easter, will consider options for reform – including whether the rate should in future be set by an independent body; whether more frequent reviews would improve predictability and certainty for all parties; and whether the methodology is appropriate for the future.

Huw Evans, director general of the Association of British Insurers, said the decision was ‘crazy’ and warned there will ‘inevitably’ be increases in motor and liability premiums.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Truss slashes discount rate but warns of impact for NHS

Slater and Gordon writes down £216m of UK business

dimanche 26 février 2017

 Revenues at embattled firm Slater and Gordon dropped 34% year-on-year as the firm continued to show few signs of recovery, half-yearly results revealed today.

The Australian listed firm, which was forced to restructure its UK operations last year, posted total revenue of less than £200m in the second half of 2016 - down from £300m in the same period of 2015.

The firm still recorded half-year losses of £262m, which was said to equal net losses of £22.5m after non-recurring costs were removed. The results were heavily impacted by a £216m ‘impairment charge’ which effectively wrote down value in the UK business.

The results will do little to persuade investors that the business can be viable going forward, and the firm admitted that its ability to continue as a going concern relies on the continued support of its lenders.

The group has presented revised financial forecasts to lenders and their financial advisers covering the period up to June 2020 and a number of recapitalisation options. Slater and Gordon’s board says it has ‘reason to believe that a successful outcome will be concluded in the coming months’, although a majority of lenders by value must agree to a satisfactory recapitalisation plan by 26 May.

Lending provided under a syndicated facility agreement made in December means the company has borrowings of more than £450m, more than half of which (around £260m) is repayable in May 2018.

Meanwhile, the cloud of a potential group action from shareholders relating to the disastrous acquisition of Quindell’s professional services division continues to hang over the firm, with a deadline of 19 June to issue court proceedings or settle the claims.

Slater and Gordon reported underperformance across its UK and Australia operations in relation to the resolution of personal injury claims.

SGL UK was said to have ‘continued to underperform’ during the second half of 2016 due to the disruption caused by the transformation activity, staff turnover and the impact of ‘negative sentiment’ on the business.

Slater and Gordon group managing director Andrew Grech said the results reflected a business ‘still very much in the midst of a major transition’.

‘While we have made progress in the UK in the past 12 months, the turnaround is taking longer than we anticipated and billed revenue performance in segments of the business is lower than expected,’ he said. ‘The full impact of the performance improvement initiatives will take time. Slater Gordon Solutions delivered positive earning and operating cash flow.’

Slater and Gordon Solutions did indeed turn a £15m loss the previous year into a £5.7m profit, although the rest of the UK business continued to suffer losses, albeit reduced by 29.4% to £4.4m. Revenues at SGL UK fell 34.6% to £47, while revenues at SGS dropped almost 40% to £87m.

Much of the bold ambition and attempts to ensure maximum market reach appear to have gone: while its early years after arriving in the UK were characterised by expansion, the firm has instead ceased operations at 18 out of 48 sites in the past six months and reduced headcount by 20%.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Slater and Gordon writes down £216m of UK business

New call to respect LPP

The Law Society has urged the government to ensure that the application of powers to snoop on communications respects legal professional privilege.

Commenting on a consultation on codes of practice under the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, Society president Robert Bourns said: ‘Legal professional privilege is the cornerstone of the trusting relationship between a solicitor and their client and intrinsic to the administration of justice, which is why we have fought and will continue to fight to ensure that the law provides appropriate protections.’

Chancery Lane has also published a practice note to ensure solicitors understand legal professional privilege – increasingly being seen as an ‘inconvenience’, the Society said. While LPP is vigorously protected by the courts and reflected in a range of legal provisions, proposals to combat crime, increase consumer choice and improve regulation all threaten to undermine its protections.

Bourns said: ‘This growing trend to see LPP as something of an “inconvenience” to be surrendered is a critical threat to the ability of clients to work openly and honestly with their solicitor, which is why the Law Society has responded so firmly in each case.

‘While we have had considerable success working with government to find ways to meet its public policy objectives while protecting LPP, such as with amendments to the Investigatory Powers Bill, we cannot do this alone.’

Legal professional privilege protects all communications between a solicitor or barrister and their clients from being revealed without the client’s permission.

The practice note states that the fact that LPP is a right can be overlooked. ‘It is a right, not of lawyers or the legal profession, but of our clients – whether individuals or corporates,’ it says.

Applying LPP to communications made in connection with internal investigations by corporations and regulated firms ‘requires care’.

LPP does not arise in relation to assistance with a crime, fraud or equivalent conduct (the ‘iniquity exception’).

Bourns said: ‘The whole solicitor profession must make sure it understands LPP, that clients understand LPP and the rights it gives them, that solicitors uphold it in their work and must be beyond reproach in their application of it if the justice system is to function properly.’

Let's block ads! (Why?)

New call to respect LPP

Lawyers wanted for the reserves

An in-house lawyer who is also Britain’s most senior reserve officer has opened a new campaign – to persuade more law firms to engage with the armed forces.

Major General Ranald Munro, appointed assistant chief of defence staff last year with a brief to build up the reserve forces by 50%, said law firms are ‘under-represented’ among the 1,400 organisations to have signed the Armed Forces Covenant.

Signatories of the covenant typically agree to encourage employees to serve in the reserves and support the employment of veterans and service spouses. No law firm is represented among the 48 organisations to win gold awards under the MoD’s employer recognition scheme.

‘We need to break down some of the myths,’ Munro told the Gazette last week at an event aimed at encouraging lawyers to engage.

Munro’s message is that employers as well as individuals benefit when lawyers serve in the reserve forces. ‘Law firms are renowned for working their people hard but that is not to say that as a supportive employer you would not benefit,’ he said. Reservists learn ‘soft skills’ such as mission analysis. ‘How to extract information to make decisions, how to assign people to a mission; these are skills that are directly transferable from the military to the work space and vice versa.’

The current defence strategy requires membership of the reserve forces to reach 35,000 by 2020, up from 25,000 in 2015. Meeting this target will require a new approach to recruitment, Munro said. ‘I think we’re growing up.’

In particular the proportion of women and people from minority ethnic communities serving in the reserves will have to increase. Specialists would also be welcome at an older age than traditional recruits, he said. Applications from cybersecurity experts, doctors and lawyers in their fifties would be looked on favourably, he added: ‘It’s about flexibility at the end of the day.’

Munro stressed that the military covenant was flexible – ‘firms can chose how much they are able to commit’. Likewise the armed forces recognise that a reservist’s commitment might increase and decrease over their career.  

‘There is definitely a synergy between lawyers, law firms and defence,’ he said. ‘As for how many lawyers we want, we want as many as we can get, quite frankly.’

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Lawyers wanted for the reserves

Law firm checks out informal appraisals

International firm Eversheds will this year usher in the demise of the annual appraisal with a new system of check-in meetings.

The top-20 firm will roll out the new model following a successful trial of more informal, regular meetings in its litigation department.

Eversheds is believed to be one of the first law firms to cancel the performance development review, and follows the likes of Microsoft, Accenture and Deloitte in changing how development and performance are monitored.

HR partner Abigail Fisher said the idea had come from exit interviews with departing employees and research about the so-called ‘millennial’ generation. ‘The firm needed to change the way they did things to engage and retain the new generation of lawyers,’ said Fisher. ‘The lawyers told us they would like honest conversations, continuous development and regular updates on matters happening across the team.’

A flyer was created for partners to conduct quarterly meetings with fee-earners which are designed to be more informal and less prescriptive.

Fisher said retention rates have already improved since the first meetings in August and the hope is that employees will feel more able to talk openly about their concerns.

The issue of increasing workloads  has come into greater focus in recent years. In December, an associate at a top-50 firm told the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal he found it ‘frankly impossible’ to handle each of his live files in sufficient detail.

Nicola Jones, a former barrister who is now an adviser on learning and development at consultancy Athena Professional, said law firms are increasingly exploring new approaches to performance management.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Law firm checks out informal appraisals

Fixed costs ‘in doubt’ after High Court backs budgeting regime

vendredi 24 février 2017

Lawyers say a High Court ruling has cast doubt on government plans to introduce fixed fees.

In Merrix v Heart of England NHS Trust, the appealing claimant successfully argued the current system of costs budgeting would be sufficient to gather fair fees.

Mrs Justice Carr agreed the claimant’s assertion that a budget fixed the amount of recoverable costs, which should only be reduced if there is good reason.

The appellant’s cost budget had been approved in the total sum of £128,256, of which £74,780 related to future costs. The bill ultimately served by Merrix was less than the approved total budget after the case was ended before trial but after lay and expert evidence had been exchanged.

Carr concluded: ‘Where a costs management order has been made, when assessing costs on the standard basis, the costs judge will not depart from the receiving party’s last approved or agreed budget unless satisfied that there is good reason to do so.

‘This applies as much where the receiving party claims a sum equal to or less than the sums budgeted as where the receiving party seeks to recover more than the sums budgeted.’

But Carr admitted her decision on first appeal will ‘not end the debate’, adding: ‘I respectfully make the perhaps obvious point that the issue would appear to be ripe for early consideration by the Court of Appeal raising, as it does, an important point of principle or practice.’

The claimant was represented by John Foy QC of 9, Gough Square and Daniel Frieze of St John’s Buildings, while solicitors for the claimant were Irwin Mitchell.

Frieze said the result calls into question the government’s proposed changes to introduce a number of fixed costs measures.

‘This ruling clearly shows the government that continued wholesale changes to solicitors’ costs may be an unwelcome distraction. In particular, the time, effort, judicial and lawyer training should not be thrown out to pursue an agenda which many consider riddled with self-interest and short-term political gains,’ he said.

‘Cases like this also emphasise that the present cost regime is working, and will hopefully force those in positions of power to rethink their approach.

‘The current system is underpinned by the notion of fairness, and the focus should be placed firmly on tweaking the current system to prevent misuse, rather than attempting wholesale change.’

Lord Justice Jackson, who created the rules on costs budgeting, is currently leading a review of fixed recoverable costs, with the support of government.

The terms of reference state that proposals will ensure the costs of going to court are ‘more certain, transparent and proportionate for litigants’. It will consider the types and areas of litigation in which such costs should be extended, and the value of claims to which such a regime should apply.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Fixed costs ‘in doubt’ after High Court backs budgeting regime

Convicted cocaine-supplying barrister is disbarred

A barrister who was found guilty of conspiring to provide cocaine has been disbarred.

Omar Khan was ordered to be disbarred by an independent disciplinary tribunal at a hearing today.

In April 2016, he was sentenced to three years' imprisonment at Nottingham Crown Court after being found guilty.

The BSB brought three charges against him for engaging in conduct which is likely to diminish the trust and confidence the public places in him or the profession.

Khan, originally from Huddersfield, worked at Nottingham-based criminal defence firm The Johnson Partnership but was sacked after he was arrested.

According to media reports, the case involved the recovery of 1kg (2.2lb) of cocaine.

A spokesperson for the BSB said: ‘A conviction for conspiring to supply a class-A substance and subsequent prison sentence is incompatible with membership of the Bar. The tribunal’s decision to disbar Khan reflects this.’

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Convicted cocaine-supplying barrister is disbarred

‘One of the outstanding family lawyers of our generation’ – tribute to Sir Nicholas Wall

Sir James Munby today paid tribute to his predecessor Sir Nicholas Wall, whose death by his own hand following a diagnosis of dementia was announced yesterday. The following is an edited extract. 

Sir Nicholas was 'indisputably one of the outstanding family lawyers of our generation. He combined great intellectual rigour with humanity and compassion. His appointment as president of the Family Division in April 2010 crowned a most distinguished career in family law.

'He was well known for his kindness and generosity to colleagues at the bar and on the bench, and for his patience and courtesy in dealing with those who appeared before him, especially those without the benefit of legal representation.'

Unlike a number of recent presidents, Sir Nicholas came to the office after an entire career steeped in family law, Munby said. 

'At the bar he established a reputation as a highly effective advocate, possessed of formidable forensic skill. His practice embraced the most complex children and financial cases; for we must not forget that, although more widely known for his practice concerning children, he appeared as counsel in a number of landmark financial cases: Edgar, De Lasala, Gojkovic, and Duxbury. A former pupil, now a judge in the division, recalls him as the best and most generous of pupil masters, a man of great kindness and immense generosity.

'Sir Nicholas was a man of many parts. He enjoyed writing clerihews and he was a skilled bookbinder. A former judicial colleague offers this by way of affectionate tribute:

“Sir Nicholas Wall

Was exceedingly tall

He said “My unreported judgments may be very few,

But I would rather bind a book or pen a clerihew.”

Sir Nicholas devoted seemingly tireless energy to the development of family justice, Munby said. 'During the 1990s he was one of the pioneers of the inter-disciplinary approach to family law – an approach which seeks to improve the quality of judicial decision-making by benefiting from the insights of a number of different disciplines including socio-legal research, child development and attachment theory and relevant developments in the hard sciences, like neuroscience.

'An inter-disciplinary approach to family law has become the norm but it was not so in the early 1990s when Sir Nicholas was one of the first to champion the cause. He was a Member of the Lord Chancellor’s Advisory Board on Family Law from 1997 to 2001 and Chairman of the Children Act Sub-committee from 1998 to 2001. In that capacity, he oversaw the consultation for, and publication of, key reports which informed the practice of family law: the committee’s 2000 report on Parental Contact in cases where there is Domestic Violence, and in 2002, Making Contact Work, its report on resolving contact disputes. 

'In 2004, he gave vital evidence to the Constitutional Affairs Select Committee on Family Justice; as a result, he was, in the following year, asked by the then President, Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, to consider the Women’s Aid report on Twenty-Nine Child Homicides. Sir Nicholas submitted his own review of this report to the president, by then Sir Mark Potter, in 2006. The review – the product of painstaking reconsideration of the relevant court files – was, as Sir Mark commented, “comprehensive and thorough”. Sir Nicholas’s recommendations, wholly accepted and endorsed by Sir Mark, led to the formulation in 2008 of the relevant Practice Direction (now PD 12J) for residence and contact disputes in cases of domestic abuse and harm.'

Sir Nicholas was not a mere lawyer, Munby said. 'He had a deep understanding of the importance of process and much of his most important work as a judge in the early years was directed to emphasising the importance of good practice, to defining the proper approach to dealing with care cases under the Children Act 1989 and to improving the process – things we now take for granted but which were less central to the culture of the family courts before he became a judge. For example, openness, frankness and transparency within the process – cards up on the table –, the need for all the professionals to work cooperatively with each other and with the court, and the vital importance of experts and of ensuring that expert evidence was presented in the best way. He was an admirer and supporter of the work of NYAS and of the contact centre movement. He was one of the first to recognise the need for a more rigorous approach to expert evidence in family proceedings, a topic on which he gave a number of leading judgments. His Handbook for Expert Witnesses in Children Act Cases, first published in 2000, with a second edition in 2007, was a landmark and remains indispensable.

'On and off the bench, and to the wide admiration of those who practise in family law, Sir Nicholas often spoke with passion, and in plain language, about the importance of family life, the good practice of family law, and the proper administration and resourcing of family justice. He was appropriately outspoken about the plight of children caught up in the midst of parental conflict. He expressed his deep concern again and again about the impact of domestic abuse on children and on family life. His words on the importance of both parents in a child’s life continue to inform us on a daily basis. He was a powerful proponent for many important things:

  • the resolution of family problems outside the courtroom,
  • the end of fault-based divorce,
  • cohabitees being given the same rights as married couples,
  • the need for improvements in the availability of experts,
  • the importance of the tandem model of representation of children in family cases,
  • the rights of litigants of person,
  • better access to information from and about the family courts, and
  • more generally, opening up both the family courts and the Court of Protection to public scrutiny.

'He was an early supporter among the judiciary of greater transparency in the family justice system and initiated a fruitful dialogue with the media on how reporting restrictions in family cases operated and explored how they might be relaxed without harm to the vulnerable.

'When it was necessary to do so, he was rightly blunt in his criticisms of poor practice wherever it affected the proper and fair administration of family justice. But always – always – his judgments were humane, balanced, and fair. He was a compassionate and empathetic judge who thought and cared deeply about the outcome of his cases.

'Sir Nicholas’s appointment as president of the Family Division in 2010 was warmly welcomed by his colleagues and widely welcomed by family specialists in both branches of the legal profession.

'It was, and I use the word in its true sense, an immense personal tragedy for Sir Nicholas and his family, his wife, children and grandchildren, that a cruel illness should have compelled him, far too young and far too soon after becoming President, to retire in December 2012; and then robbed his family of the man they loved and admired. For us, for the whole family justice system, it was and remains an enormous loss. But even in his all too short time as president Sir Nicholas achieved much of lasting significance. He drove forward the move to greater transparency. In July 2011, together with the Society of Editors, he issued an invaluable guide, The Family Courts: Media Access & Reporting, for the use of journalists, judges and practitioners. 

'In this, as in other matters, he was a convinced, determined and principled moderniser,' Munby said.

He concluded: 'Sir Nicholas’s life was one of very great achievement and he has left us a formidable and enduring legacy. But can I end with a final reference to Sir Nicholas the man. Professionally and personally he was known for his precision, clarity and commitment to openness and transparency with a parallel dislike for euphemisms, secrecy and obfuscation. He spent much of his life challenging stigma and speaking professionally and publicly and with great humanity about subjects that others found difficult or emotionally challenging. Those of us who enjoyed the privilege of working with him, appearing before him, sitting together with him on the bench, mourn the loss of a good man, a great family lawyer and an immensely valued colleague.'

Let's block ads! (Why?)

‘One of the outstanding family lawyers of our generation’ – tribute to Sir Nicholas Wall

MoJ to introduce allowance to stop judges quitting

With top judges signalling a mass exodus amid plunging morale, the government has confirmed it is introducing a temporary allowance to persuade judges not to leave the bench. 

A Ministry of Justice spokesperson told the Gazette that it was ‘absolutely paramount that we get the right people into the High Court, which also offers a crucial pipeline into the higher judiciary’.

The spokesperson said: ‘We are introducing a temporary, targeted allowance to make sure we attract the very brightest talent and help stop our exceptional judges from leaving early.’

A Judicial Attitudes Survey, published this month, found that more than 40% of senior judges intend to quit early within five years.

Over three-quarters of judges felt their working conditions have deteriorated since 2014, with 46% of circuit judges responding that they were ‘significantly’ worse.

Most judges (64%) reported that the morale of court staff was poor; 43% said the maintenance of their building was poor; and 42% said administrative support was poor.

An overwhelming majority (78%) of salaried judges said they have lost earnings over the last two years, with 62% citing pension changes as affecting them personally. Three-quarters felt their pay and pension combined did not adequately reflect their work and most said it was affecting morale.

Meanwhile, government figures show a rapid decline in the number of immigration tribunal judges since 2012.

The possibility of an allowance first came to light in a pensions dispute between the government and 210 judges.

In an employment tribunal judgment published last month, tribunal judge Stuart Williams said evidence before him showed that a recruitment and retention allowance ‘remains currently a proposal and is not yet a firm commitment’.

Williams said documentary evidence ‘clearly shows some sensitivity’ in the government about how such an allowance, if made, should be presented publicly.

Williams found that the combination of adverse pension changes and successive taxation changes had reduced the overall value of a High Court judge’s remuneration to the point where it had become difficult to recruit new High Court judges.

However, he said there was no necessary connection between the government’s transitional provisions regarding pension reforms and the proposed allowance.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

MoJ to introduce allowance to stop judges quitting

UKIP MP’s patent court warning fails to find support

An early day motion intended to derail the UK’s process to ratify the Unified Patent Court (UPC) has so far failed to attract attention.

Earlier this month Douglas Carswell, the UK Independence Party's sole MP, tabled an EDM urging the government not to ratify the court agreement. So far, the EDM has just one signatory, Carswell himself.

The motion states: ‘That the protocol, done at Brussels on 14 December 2016, on privileges and immunities of the Unified Patent Court … should not be ratified.’

The protocol on privileges and immunities was signed by the UK Intellectual Property Office in December last year and is necessary for the UPC and its judges to carry out activities. However, national legislation is still required to implement the protocol before the UPC can be ratified.

Douglascarswell

When operational the UPC will hear disputes relating to unitary patents, a new form of patent protection that will be valid in jurisdictions that have signed up to the agreement – currently EU member states only.

There will be branches of the court across the EU with major divisions in Paris, Germany and the UK. The UK will host its branch in Aldgate Tower, on the edge of the City. It will be the first arm of the Court of Justice of the EU to be based on UK soil.

The courts will have to abide by EU law and will be answerable to the Court of Justice of the European Union. Despite this, the IPO has maintained that the UPC is ‘not an EU institution’ and has described it as an ‘international court’ set up by an international agreement.

The Gazette has contacted Carswell for comment.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

UKIP MP’s patent court warning fails to find support

Neuberger fears workloads forcing ‘refuseniks’ away from senior judiciary

Supreme Court president Lord Neuberger has expressed public concerns over the talent pool still motivated to enter the senior judiciary.

Neuberger, who retires in the autumn, said in a speech that the proportion of ‘refuseniks’ among possible candidates is increasing and the trend threatens to become a problem if it continues.

He warned that the drift could threaten the UK’s reputation for a first-class judiciary and in turn undermine the financial and professional services industries.

‘Senior judges have jobs with greater pressures and requiring a much greater mix of skills than previously,’ he said. ‘A judicial career still seems immensely rewarding to the great majority who do the job, but there is no doubt that the heavy workload of a judge coupled with the increasing gap between judicial pay and the rewards of successful private practice means that appointment to the High Court is significantly less attractive than it was.’

Neuberger cited the pressure of cases, reforms to litigation procedures and the reduction in legal aid as factors behind some wariness over applying for senior roles.

In a wide-ranging lecture at the Oxford Law Faculty, Neuberger also questioned the merits of disclosure of documents in court and cross-examination of witnesses, saying the value of both was ‘highly questionable’.

He said most cases would have been decided the same way with expensive disclosure and inspection of documents, as lawyers search largely fruitlessly for a ‘smoking gun’ to secure their case.

‘I question whether the odd case where full disclosure really has made all the difference justifies the pointless expenditure in the countless other cases where it makes no difference,’ he said.

‘As for cross-examination, most of the best points that emerge from questioning can be made much more shortly in argument. I am very sceptical about judges relying on their impression of a witness, or even how the witness deals with questions.’

He suggested some disputes might appear to be resolved by reference to who calls the best-performing witness, and there was an argument in some cases not to add the ‘complicating factor’ of oral testimony.

Meanwhile, the Judicial Appointments Commission has begun the process of recruiting a lord chief justice to replace Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, who retires this year.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Neuberger fears workloads forcing ‘refuseniks’ away from senior judiciary

Partner profits flat at Hogan Lovells

Profits per equity partner at international firm Hogan Lovells remained flat last year on a 6% increase in turnover, according to figures released today.

In the year ending 31 December the firm’s revenue increased from $1.82bn (£1.45bn) in 2015 to $1.92bn (£1.53bn), a 5.7% increase. Profit per equity partner was $1.252m (£924,000) compared to $1.250m (£817,000) in 2015. Globally, this equated to a 0.2% rise. However, because of currency fluctuations, UK partners enjoyed a 13% rise.

The firm said it pays in local currency but that fluctuations are 'ironed out'. Measured in sterling, the firm’s overall revenue increased by 20% from £1.19bn in 2015 to £1.420bn in 2016.

According to the firm, the ‘clear impact’ of currency exchange rates can be clearly seen. Had exchange rates remained constant, the firm says it would have seen an overall revenue increase of 7.9%.

The firm used the average exchange rate of £1 = $1.36. For 2015 the exchange rate was £1 = $1.53.

London and continental Europe accounted for 41% of the firm’s total billings.

Across the firm’s five practice groups, corporate represented approximately 32% of total billings. Intellectual property media and technology accounted for 10% of overall revenue.

Steve Immelt, Hogan Lovells chief executive, said: ‘2016 saw us deliver a solid performance and we achieved growth of 4.9% in our billable hours compared to 2015, reflecting good levels of demand in a relatively flat and uncertain market for legal services.’

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Partner profits flat at Hogan Lovells

Barristers ‘not there to empathise’ with youth criminals, regulator told

Barristers have clashed over what terminology should be used in guidance for youth court advocacy, with a member of the regulator’s board stating that the profession is ‘not there to empathise’ with criminals.

Yesterday the Bar Standards Board discussed its ‘Youth Proceedings Competencies and Guidance’ – guidelines for ‘key competencies’ that all barristers operating in youth courts must meet.

Part of the document encourages barristers to ‘empathise, understand and communicate effectively’ with those who may not share their own style of spoken language or background. It also recommends that they should have the ability to ‘empathise and build trust with young people’.

But board members clashed over the wording of the guidelines.

Judith Farbey QC, board member and a member of Doughty Street Chambers, said she felt ‘very strongly’ over the words 'empathy' and 'understand'.

‘Empathy and understanding are not part of being a barrister,’ she said. ‘I would have great trouble feeling empathy for someone who had daubed a swastika over a building but that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t do my best to do my job of representing them. Empathy and understanding do not come into it. It’s not our job to be empathetic.’

She added that she also felt uncomfortable with references to race, gender and religious background.

Oliver Hanmer, the BSB’s director of regulatory assurance, said members could suggest alternative wordings before publishing the guidance – including dropping the words ‘empathy' and 'understand’ so that the guidance would only state that barristers should ‘communicate effectively’.

The guidance was published following a review of the youth justice system in December last year which suggested improvements to the system including making youth court advocacy a specialism.

It also encourages barristers to speak in ‘plain English’ and recognise that young people might find it ‘difficult to engage with them’.

The board meeting also heard that very junior barristers are often given youth courts cases. The guidelines are set to be published later today.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Barristers ‘not there to empathise’ with youth criminals, regulator told

NHSLA invites firms to fight over £544m contracts

The NHS Litigation Authority (NHSLA) has opened a tender for firms to compete for work worth up to £544m over the next four years. The organisation this week invited bids for the provision of health-related legal services. Current contracts for legal services provision expire in May.

The contracts are split into three service categories: clinical liabilities, non-clinical liabilities, and regulatory, health and disciplinary law.

The clinical contract is available for up to 10 firms and is worth £480m (excluding VAT) over the next four years. The other two categories are valued at £32m each over the coming 48 months.

The organisation said: ‘The services required are to meet with an ongoing, and often urgent, need to access law firms with specialist expertise and knowledge to provide advice and support on a wide range of health-related issues.

‘As law firms often specialise in particular areas and so not all firms will be able to offer expertise across the full range of our requirements, the health-related legal services framework has been divided into three distinct lots.’

The NHSLA said its ‘unique purchasing power’ will ensure the health service receives value for money and maintains high-quality legal services for members.

Submissions are encouraged from firms for one or all of the lots, with the quality of applications deciding how many are selected.

NHSLA spending is under scrutiny at the moment as the National Audit Office studies the cost of defending clinical negligence claims.

The watchdog wants to investigate the NHS Litigation Authority’s main scheme for defending claims, whereby NHS trusts pay into a risk pool and receive indemnity cover. The Department of Health spent £1.5bn defending claims in 2015/16.

A report is likely to be published this summer.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

NHSLA invites firms to fight over £544m contracts

CMS Nabarro Olswang reveals European closures

CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang has revealed more details of the effects of the 'super-merger’, including the closure of three Olswang offices across Europe.

Olswang will close its Paris office next week while discussions about the future of the firm’s Munich office remain ongoing, the firm said.

All six of Olswang’s Brussels-based lawyers will join the combined firm after the office closes at the end of April.

Olswang’s Madrid office closed last month. Three former Olswang lawyers have started roles at CMS’s office in the Spanish capital, including Blanca Escribano, a partner who will lead the technology, media telecommunications and IP team.

The merger between CMS UK, Nabarro and Olswang, announced in October last year, is expected to create a new ‘City powerhouse’ with a £1bn turnover.

Once the deal is finalised in May this year it will become the world’s sixth largest law firm by headcount.

The new firm will trade as CMS and the name of the UK LLP will be CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang LLP.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

CMS Nabarro Olswang reveals European closures

Solicitors unite to oppose fee cuts

The criminal defence community cannot absorb any more legal aid fee cuts, the Law Society and practitioner groups have told the government, which this week suggested that it will press ahead with controversial proposals.

The Law Society, Legal Aid Practitioners’ Group, Criminal Law Solicitors’ Association and London Criminal Courts Solicitors’ Association yesterday issued a joint position statement opposing the Ministry of Justice’s proposals to reform the litigators’ graduated fee scheme (LGFS).

The organisations have made 10 joint representations to the Ministry of Justice and Legal Aid Agency.

They say: ’We do not agree that any further cut in fee income is capable of being absorbed by the profession and therefore oppose the imposition of an 8.75% cut across the board or the proposed cap on pages of prosecution evidence.

’We believe that the imposition of either cut will damage the supplier base and provides a very real threat to access to justice. The net effect of the damage will see an increase in cost to the taxpayer thus negating any potential savings.’

A second 8.75% fee cut was suspended for 12 months in April last year. However, justice minister Sir Oliver Heald said the lord chancellor was minded not to reinstate the second fee cut. This would be confirmed once the government considered the responses to the consultation, which closes on 24 March.

The ministry proposes to reduce the threshold for pages of prosecution evidence (PPE) from the current cap of 10,000 pages to 6,000 pages. It also wants to cap court appointees’ costs at legal aid rates. 

The Society and practitioner groups say there should not be a link between the proposed second fee cut and LGFS spend.

They say they cannot support what amounts to a 75% cut in rates payable to court-appointed advocates. They argue that the ministry has failed to consider, in its impact assessment, the effect such a cut will have on victims of crime or prosecution witnesses. It will also deter firms from accepting such 'high risk work’.

Earlier this week the LAA, publishing a consultation and fee cut update, said PPE ’is no longer seen as the most effective way of assessing how much work a litigator needs to do on individual cases’. In the short term, it wants to lower the upper limit for counting PPE.

With regards to payments to court appointees, the agency said the government view ’is that these higher rates cannot be justified’.

The Society and practitioner groups say it is ’inappropriate, unfair and unreasonable’ to require litigators to absorb the impact of the ’LAA’s failure to properly interpret the PPE regulations when the court was simply correcting an injustice created by the LAA’.

With the nature of cases being prosecuted changing, ’it follows that prosecuting such cases will create an increase to expenditure in every department. It is fundamentally wrong to expect legal aid practitioners to absorb this’.

LGFS spend should not be considered in isolation, they add. ’The number of very high cost cases [has] decreased considerably together with the spend which has been absorbed into the LGFS payments. All or part of the increase may be attributable to cost cutting and policy change instigated by the LAA themselves.’

They say the consultation renders the government’s desire to restructure LGFS payments in the long term impossible. Any restructure would involve a redistribution of fees that the MoJ and LAA are seeking to cut. ’Until such time as the consultation and/or proposed cuts are suspended or withdrawn any long-term restructure is superfluous,’ they say.

The statement concludes: ’Any further cut threatens the sustainability of all firms regardless of size or structure. It therefore follows that a line must be drawn as the profession cannot absorb any more cuts.’

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Solicitors unite to oppose fee cuts

City firms’ trainee retention rates falling

jeudi 23 février 2017

City firms have begun to release their spring trainee retention rates, with many rates falling compared to previous years.

International firm Hogan Lovells retained 79% of its intake. Of its 29-strong cohort, 26 applied for a role with 23 offers being made and accepted.

Last year, it held onto 27 out of 29 trainees – a 93% retention rate.

Magic circle firm Clifford Chance retained 67% of its trainee group. Out of 46 trainees, 43 applied for a role. The firm made 33 offers with 31 trainees accepting a position.

In 2016, it took on 80% of its cohort retaining 43 trainees from a cohort of 54.

Berwin Leighton Paisner also posted a fall in the number of trainees taken on. Just 55% of its trainees, 11 out of 20, were given a role.

Anthony Lennox, BLP partner and training principal, said: ‘We’d like to have been announcing a higher proportion of qualifiers. However, our NQs will continue to be a huge asset to our firm, across the teams that they will shortly qualifying into.’

Last year, the firm took on 70% of its trainees.

At Herbert Smith Freehills 77% of its 35 trainees were taken on.

Of the 35, 33 applied for a role, 28 offers were made and 27 trainees accepted a position.

Meanwhile Slaughter and May announced late last year that all 25 of its trainees eligible to qualify in 2017 had been made an offer by the firm and had accepted a position.

‘Our consistently high retention rates demonstrate that the long-term future of the firm, as well as its distinctive culture and ethos, is in good hands,’ a spokesperson said.

Earlier this month, the Law Society’s Junior Lawyers Division said one of its priorities for the next 12 months would be to ensure that trainees are told in adequate time whether or not they will be retained by their firm.

JLD chair Bryan Scant told the Gazette there were some instances where trainees were told only a day before their training contract was due to finish that they would not be taken on. Others had been told they would be taken on only for the firm to then change its mind.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

City firms’ trainee retention rates falling

Top legal aid firm rebuked over referral payments

A prominent legal aid firm has been rebuked by the Solicitors Regulation Authority after making referral payments to an introducer for clients who received public funding.

Harrow firm Duncan Lewis Solicitors agreed to the publication of a regulatory settlement agreement following the SRA’s investigation.

The decision, published on the regulator’s website yesterday, states that Duncan Lewis entered into an arrangement with the National Centre for Domestic Violence (NCDV) for the referral of clients seeking urgent legal assistance.

The NCDV carried out preparatory work on the cases, such as obtaining the client’s witness statement, before referring the client to the firm.

The firm paid the centre £170 plus VAT for each referral. The cases referred by NCDV benefitted from public funding.

Duncan Lewis did not tell the clients referred by NCDV that the firm had paid a fee.

The firm admitted that, by making payments to an introducer in respect of clients who have the benefit of public funding, it failed to achieve outcome 9.6 of the SRA’s code of conduct. By failing to inform clients of any financial or other interest which an introducer had in referring the client to the firm, it failed to achieve outcome 9.4 of the code.

The SRA said the firm’s conduct was 'neither trivial nor justifiably inadvertent’.

However, the regulator took into account mitigation put forward by the firm. It said that Duncan Lewis had: stopped paying referral fees to NCDV; complied with the SRA’s investigation, made admissions and apologised for its conduct; and it had reviewed its procedures and made changes to reduce the risk of similar breaches occurring again.

Duncan Lewis agreed to be rebuked, fined £2,000 and pay investigation costs in the sum of £1,350.

In a statement, Duncan Lewis said today: 'The firm entered into an arrangement with the NCDV in good faith, relying on an external guidance note of May 2007.Having been notified by the SRA that it intended to review that arrangement, the firm immediately suspended its arrangement with NCDV.

'In the course of that review the firm volunteered an admission that the external guidance note relied upon was incorrect and that a fee paid to the NCDV for services provided constituted a referral fee. The firm does not intend to rekindle its arrangement with NCDV. The SRA has noted that the firm complied with its investigation, made admissions, apologised for its conduct, reviewed and made changes to its procedures to reduce the risk of reoccurrence.'

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Top legal aid firm rebuked over referral payments

Courts bill: whiplash plans will clog up courts to boost insurer profits, says Law Society

The Law Society has hit out at plans to raise the small claims limit for all road traffic injuries to £5,000, claiming the move will not only deny justice to accident victims but also clog up the courts. 

A spokesperson said: ’These changes will deprive motorists and their passengers from being able to recover the cost of essential legal advice for any injuries worth £5,000 and under when a negligent driver crashes into their car.

’While we are glad that the MoJ has listened to some of our concerns, and has decided to restrict the increase in the small claims limit to £2,000 for personal injury cases other than road traffic claims, we cannot accept that a £5,000 limit for motoring claims is reasonable.

’The government is treating injuries that would be regarded as grievous bodily harm in the criminal courts as small claims. A limit of £5,000 will mean injuries including facial scarring, fractured ribs, a bruised chest and whiplash to the neck would be considered as ”small claims”. This means people will be forced to bring claims themselves without expert legal advice.

’The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) does not appear to have properly considered the fact that this will clog up the court system creating a David and Goliath situation where people recovering from their injuries, deprived of legal advice, have no choice but to act for themselves.

’Those defending claims meanwhile are likely to be able to pay for legal advice. The increase in the number of litigants in person that will result from these changes will have serious consequences for the courts.’

Chancery hotly disputes the government narrative underpinning the proposals that reform is all about curbing fraudulent claims.

The spokesperson added: ’Fraudulent claims are repellent but they should be dealt with by targeting the fraudsters - not the vast majority of honest claimants who have been injured and bring genuine claims.’

The Society has, however, campaigned for some of the changes proposed in the bill and it welcomed a proposal to ditch the practice of insurers offering compensation for whiplash ahead of any medical assessment. This should be extended to all claims, the Society argues.

But like the Assocation of Personal Injury Lawyers, Chancery Lane is dismissive of the government’s insistence that reform will cut motor premiums.

The spokesperson added: ’We are utterly sceptical of the notion that off the back of these changes motorists will have their insurance premiums cut as the insurance industry has significant form falling short when it comes to passing savings to its customers.’

As the Society pointed out, the Association of British Insurers conceded to the Commons Justice Select Committee during a session on personal injury reform that the insurance industry saved ‘hundreds of millions of pounds’ from reforms to personal injury in 2013 and that the number of whiplash claims has come down in the last year.

The findings of an economic study by Compass Lexecon also show that gains from the government plans will boost insurers’ profits.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Courts bill: whiplash plans will clog up courts to boost insurer profits, says Law Society