Women solicitors honoured in birthday list

Judge and former Linklaters partner Alexandra Marks is one of a handful of solicitors among more than 1,000 recipients of the Queen’s Birthday honours announced today. Marks, a Crown court recorder, criminal cases review commissioner, judicial appointments commissioner and chair, Prisoners’ Education Trust, was made CBE for public service. She is also the recipient of a Law Society lifetime achievement award. 

Another prominent woman solicitor honoured is Olufunke Abimbola, general counsel in the UK and Ireland for biotech giant Roche. Abimbola receives the MBE for services to diversity in the legal profession and to young people.

Among the barristers honoured is children’s rights campaigner Professor Carolyn Hamilton, director of international programmes and research, Coram Children’s Legal Centre. She is made DBE for services to children’s rights.

A member of the board of the Solicitors Regulation Authority, Professor Shamit Saggar of the University of Essex, is made a CBE for services to social science and public policy.

Legal figures honoured also include: 

Edwin Beltrami, chief crown prosecutor London North: CBE for services to law and order.

Professor Kulwant Gill, University of Roehampton: CBE or services to tackling forced marriage, honour crimes and violence against women. 

Andrea Brewster, past president, Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys, receives the OBE for services to intellectual property. 

Professor Emily Jackson, London School of Economics, receives the OBE for services to higher education.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Women solicitors honoured in birthday list

Abimbola honoured in birthday list

Olufunke Abimbola, general counsel for biiotech giant Roche in the UK and Ireland, is one of a handful of solicitors among more than 1,000 recipients of the Queen’s Birthday honours announced today. Abimbola receives the MBE for services to diversity in the legal profession and to young people.

Among the barristers honoured is children’s rights campaigner Professor Carolyn Hamilton, director of international programmes and research, Coram Children’s Legal Centre, is made DBE for services to children’s rights.

A member of the board of the Solicitors Regulation Authority, Professor Shamit Saggar of the University of Essex, is made a CBE for services to social science and public policy.

Legal figures honoured also include: 

Edwin Beltrami, chief crown prosecutor London North: CBE for services to law and order.

Professor Kulwant Gill, University of Roehampton: CBE or services to tackling forced marriage, honour crimes and violence against women. 

Alexandra Marks, Crown court recorder, criminal cases review commissioner, judicial appointments commissioner and chair, Prisoners’ Education Trust: CBE for public service.

Andrea Brewster, past president, Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys, receives the OBE for services to intellectual property. 

Professor Emily Jackson, London School of Economics, receives the OBE for services to higher education.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Abimbola honoured in birthday list

Credit-hire witnesses jailed for contempt

Seven people who were found to have committed perjury on an 'industrial scale' by giving courts inaccurate information on the cost of hire cars provided after road traffic accidents were today given prison sentences. The seven, former employees of expert evidence business Autofocus, were jailed for terms from six months to over 13 months.

The sentencing is the latest twist in long-running litigation over a case brought  by Accident Exchange after Lord Justice Moses had considered perjury had taken place on an ‘industrial scale’ in a 2012 High Court hearing.

Passing sentence today, Mr Justice Supperstone said he was mindful of the substantial damage that had been done to the business of credit hire firm Accident Exchange and its employees over a prolonged period. He noted that with the exception of one defendant the main perpetrators of the fraud had not been before the court in this action. As a result, he has referred the case to the director of public prosecutions with a recommendation that the position of those who controlled and managed Autofocus at the time be carefully reviewed.

In a statement, Accident Exchange expressed its 'regret that the actions of the individuals – working for and responsible to both their employer and the legal process – has resulted in such serious consequences for them personally.'

Accident Exchange continues to pursue Commercial Court proceedings for the recovery of what it claims are losses of £125 million attributable to the production and deployment of false and misleading evidence by Autofocus.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Credit-hire witnesses jailed for contempt

Courts are not pay-as-you-go consumer service providers - LCJ

In a thinly veiled attack on the calibre of recent lord chancellors, the head of the judiciary in England and Wales has lambasted the thinking behind attempts to make courts financially self sufficient. Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd also urged the next incumbent, David Lidington MP, to be ready to t'act against the wishes of other members of the cabinet or the prime minister'.

Lord Thomas was speaking at the Palace of Westminster yesterday, four days before Lidington is due to be sworn in - the fifth holder of the key constitutional post in five years and the fourth in a row to lack legal qualifications. 

The address was an outspoken climax to a series of speeches on relations between the judiciary and other branches of the state. Thomas dealt in turn with breakdowns in understanding between the judiciary and parliament, the executive and the media. Lack of understanding with the executive, he said, is illustrated by 'the characterisation of the courts as being service providers akin to a utility like water supply, of litigants exercising their constitutional right of access to the courts to vindicate their rights, to being consumers who, like any other consumer, must pay for the service they receive.'

Attacking the 'user pays' principle underlying recent court fee increases, he said: 'What has been needed, and still is needed, is an understanding by all that the judicial branch is just that: a branch of state, and, crucially, the branch that with parliament secures the rule of law. As such it cannot be confused with, or referred to as, a provider of consumer services. Equally, there cannot but be a proper recognition that it should be funded properly by the state.'

Thomas also made his most direct attack yet on last November's 'Enemies of the people' headline in the Daily Mail, saying it amounted to the media subjecting the judiciary to abuse. 'Such abuse is not simply an attack on the judges who made the decision; judges have undertaken to decide cases without fear or favour and must not be subjected to improper pressure of this kind. Moreover, such abuse is corrosive of public confidence in the judiciary and the rule of law and hence the other branches of the state.'

On relations with parliament, he revealed the existence of a programme for MPs to visit the Royal Courts of Justice and local courts and tribunals. 'Greater familiarity breeds greater understanding, which cannot but help parliament carry out its constitutional role,' he said. He said that in 'one or two instances'  MPs had written to judges on behalf of constituents who are involved in proceedings with 'a suggestion, no doubt inadvertent, that the letters should or could be taken account of by the judge dealing with the proceedings'. He added: 'I say inadvertent because I am sure that no member of parliament would deliberately seek to influence a judicial decision.'

Thomas' most withering, if anonymously directed, criticism was on recent holders of the post of lord chancellor. Noting that the 2005 Constitutional Reform Act uniquely imposed a unstatutory qualification on the role, he described the criteria as 'broad and ill-defined'. In any case, he suggested they had been overlooked in recent appointments. 'I do not think that it is right, given the need for working relations between the branches of the state... that a provision inserted into the 2005 Act should be treated as ineffective.'

He reminded the next incumbent of his duties set out in the oath of office. 'Difficult though it may be, these are responsibilities which parliament has required of the lord chancellor a solemn oath to perform. The duties are an essential part of the proper interdependence inherent in the operation of our constitution and an essential safeguard to the independence of the judiciary which is fundamental to the maintenance of the rule of law, our democracy and the prosperity and good order of our state.'

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Courts are not pay-as-you-go consumer service providers - LCJ

SRA to cap profits made by super-exam provider

The Solicitors Regulation Authority is to impose a cap on profits made by the supplier chosen to run the super-exam assessment.

The regulator yesterday opened the tender for a provider to administer the Solicitors Qualifying Exam from September 2020.

The tender document reveals that the SRA intends to keep controls over the exam’s content and standards, making the pass mark subject to the approval of the chief executive. The SRA will also own all intellectual property in the SQE brand, which will be licensed to the successful supplier. 

The SRA will not pay the supplier, although it may provide some funds to cover the upfront costs. Suppliers will set candidates fees, subject to SRA approval, which must remain ‘broadly stable’ and represent ‘value for money’ for the candidates paying.

According to the documents, the regulator will insist on ‘open book access’ to the assessment supplier’s accounts to determine whether fees being charged are fair and reasonable and to justify any increase. It is stressed in the tender document that the regulator is not necessarily seeking the lowest fee proposed, although there are no suggestions what the fee should be.

To ensure candidates are not charged excessive fees, any profits beyond a certain level from the SQE will be paid into a ‘re-investment fund’. The level of this cap is unspecified.

The document adds: ‘The SQE is not an income generating exercise for the SRA and we do not wish to retain excess profits for ourselves. We will decide how this money is spent either in connection with the improvement of the SQE or to provide financial assistance to candidates.’

The SRA states the exam must be a ‘rigorous, valid and reliable assessment’ that ensures newly qualified solicitors have the competences required for effective practice.

As expected, the qualification will be in two parts: a computer-based exam testing legal knowledge and a series of practical assessments.

The chosen assessment supplier will conduct its work in an ‘open and transparent way’ to help universities, training providers, publishers and employers prepare for implementation.

The SRA confirms it is prepared to work with a supplier already engaged in training - a potential conflict of interest revealed this week by the Gazette.

In response to this issue, the SRA adds: ‘We will only contract with an assessment supplier who is either not engaged in the delivery of preparatory training for the SQE or who can assure use that there is a separation of these activities to avoid any perceived or actual conflict of interest of distortion of the training market.’

The closing date for final submissions is 1 September, with shortlisted bidders notified by 1 November and a contract issued next March.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

SRA to cap profits made by super-exam provider

Tower fire: solicitor urges residents to demand inquest not inquiry

Comments made by a solicitor who acted for victims of the Lakanal House fire in 2009 have prompted a debate about whether the public inquiry promised by the prime minister is the best way to uncover the facts behind the Grenfell Tower tragedy. 

Solicitor advocate Sophie Khan, director of London firm Sophie Khan & Co, told BBC's Newsnight last night, that the 'right way' is inquests, not a public inquiry. 'The families have a right to participate, they have a right to cross-examine, they have the right to put questions to all the experts, they are even able to get their own experts if the coroner gives permission,' she said.

'The coroner is independent of the government. In a public inquiry it is very much government led. There are very limited rules in public inquiries. It is very much government led, government controlled, government outcome.'

With an inquest, by contrast, Khan said the government 'loses control of what a jury verdict will do. The juries will come out with narrative verdicts which may be very difficult for the government to hear'.

When asked to confirm that there cannot be both public inquiry and inquest, Khan said: 'You can't have both. You can only have one or the other.'

She urged residents to demand an inquest. 'I'm very concerned as to why [prime minister] Mrs May came out so quickly to say "public inquiry". What is there that she knows that needs to be hidden?,' she added.

Khan's comments prompted a discussion about public inquiries and inquests. The two are 'not mutually exclusive', human rights barrister Simon McKay said on Twitter today.

McKay said a public inquiry, under the Public Inquiry Act 2005, 'will almost certainly' be chaired by an independent judge. Victims and other interest groups will be 'core participants' and can be represented by lawyers. Their lawyers can, under the Public Inquiry Rule, ask questions of any witness subject to the chair's permission.

An inquest has a narrow frame of reference, McKay said. The deaths at Grenfell Tower will likely qualify as article 2 inquests, which have a wider frame of reference. 

McKay added: 'Contrary to the commentator's views last night advocates don't "cross-examine" witnesses as an inquest is inquisitorial by nature. Advocates and other interested persons can ask relevant questions. There is no requirement on the part of the witness to answer a question that might incriminate them.

'An inquest may also avoid areas likely to be the subject of a criminal investigation. Importantly an inquest cannot apportion blame - in terms of civil of criminal liability - that is not the function of an inquest. Unlike a public inquiry. Caution should be exercised by those thinking an inquest is a panacea... I'm not saying public inquiries are not without difficulties but the idea they are an attempt to divert accountability is deeply flawed.'

At least 17 people are confirmed to have died, 37 people are still in hospital and many are missing after fire quickly spread through the 24-storey block in the early hours of Wednesday morning.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, in a statement yesterday, said 'the judge-led public inquiry must be speedy and all residents should have access to legal aid and the support they need'.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Tower fire: solicitor urges residents to demand inquest not inquiry

'Strong roots': Hogan Lovells announces Boston combination

Hogan Lovells will be adding 25 lawyers to its team after becoming the latest firm to announce a 'combination'. The multinational firm, headquartered in London and Washington DC, will combine with Boston-based practice Collora. The combination will come into effect on 1 September.

Hogan Lovells said the new office will focus on litigation and investigations with a particular emphasis on life sciences and healthcare. Regulatory, corporate transactions and IP capabilities will eventually be added.

Steve Immelt, chief executive of Hogan Lovells, said: 'The Boston region is a key strategic market in the US. Although we have worked closely with clients in the area for years, it more recently became clear to us that there was a need for an office that had strong roots in the community.'

Collora, which has 25 lawyers including 15 partners, was founded in 1988 and originally dedicated to helping clients accused of serious or complex offences. The firm says on its website: 'As advocates, we rally around our clients and fellow legal professionals. When any of us go to trial for a client, we feel that we are all on trial, and that's how we like it. We thrive under pressure, and we are willing to take chances.'

Collora managing partner Bill Lovett will become office managing partner of the Hogan Lovells Boston office. He said: 'We looked very hard at making sure that the business and cultural fit would be right for us - for nearly 30 years our firm has been commited to serving our clients and contributing to our community. No other Boston firm has Hogan Lovells' global reach.'

Earlier this week London-headquartered international firm Norton Rose Fulbright announced it is teaming up with Australia-based Henry Davis York in what will the former's second combination in 2017. In February it announced it is combining with international firm Chadbourne & Parke, which is headquartered in New York.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

'Strong roots': Hogan Lovells announces Boston combination