Hundreds of small independent solicitors across Scotland could be forced out of business after four of the biggest law firms in the country voted through reforms that will enable supermarkets and banks to provide cut-price legal advice on services such as house purchases and small claims.

Yesterday, opponents of the reforms, including the Scottish Law Agents Society, which represents independent firms, and the Faculty of Procurators of Dumfriesshire, expressed anger at the scope of the new measures, which they said would introduce a “Tesco Law,” and change the face of the high street.

The society called for protection for smaller solicitors, and said its members were unaware of the significance of the vote at the time.

The reforms, known as Alternative Business Structures (ABS), are due to be introduced this year under the Legal Services (Scotland) Bill. As well as allowing supermarkets to compete, they will give large legal firms the right to take on areas such as accountancy and financial services, giving them the ability to expand their businesses across Europe.

However, its opponents are incensed that a vote in 2008, made by less than a tenth of Scotland’s solicitors, has resulted in the most fundamental legal reform since the Law Society was founded in 1949.

The votes were cast at a meeting of the Law Society of Scotland, attended by fewer than 100 solicitors. They were bolstered by 801 proxy votes cast by solicitors from the four big practices, including such famous names as Dundas and Wilson, Shepherd and Wedderburn, and McGrigors, against only 132 votes. ABS was also approved by 49 to 18 on a show of hands in the meeting hall. Under the legislation, supermarkets and banks would have the power to force down fees for relatively simple and profitable work, such as conveyancing and accident claims.

Mike Dailly of the Govan Law Centre accused the bigger practices of “railroading” the changes through the Law Society. “This was the senior partners in the big firms who wanted to protect their vested interest. The rest of us were asleep. There are thousands of solicitors in Scotland — the difficulty has been in conveying to the profession how significant a change this is.”

Critics fear that the vote will threaten the independence of solicitors and inhibit the constitutional right of the consumer to access justice.

Under the proposals, which are likely to be enacted this year, legal firms would be able to raise capital from outside investors and expand their professional services into areas such as accountancy and financial consultancy. In a second radical change, inspired by earlier measures in England and Wales, businesses such as banks or supermarkets could offer a full range of solicitors’ services.

Opponents say the changes will see “Tesco law” swamp the market, cherry-picking the easiest, most profitable work, leaving only difficult, costly cases for smaller practices to pick up. The Scottish Law Agents Society yesterday said it had mooted a special general meeting to debate a motion calling a halt to the momentum of ABS, and for the work of the solicitor to receive statutory protection. The move was backed by the Faculty of Procurators of Dumfriesshire A Scottish government spokesman said that its Bill had been drawn up after extensive consultation and debate with the legal profession.

Alan Campbell, managing partner at Dundas & Wilson, said: “We offered ourselves as a collection point to submit proxy votes on behalf of our lawyers, who were encouraged to vote according to their preference. As a firm, however, we support the Law Society’s recommendation for reform.”

View the latest Legal Jobs in Scotland with Simply Law Jobs.

Source : The Times

Bookmark It

A law firm and Oxford academics are setting up a scheme to encourage a wider range of young people to enter the legal profession.

Social mobility is becoming an election battleground – with the government promising measures to break the “glass ceiling” that limits access to the most sought-after careers.

This follows a strongly-worded report from former minister Alan Milburn, which warned that in many professions social mobility was at risk of going into reverse.

There were fears that professions such as the law and medicine were becoming dominated by youngsters from the most affluent backgrounds.

“The typical doctor or lawyer of the future will today be growing up in a family that is better off than five in six of all families in the UK,” the report warns.

It describes law as “one of the most socially exclusive professions” in which “50% of solicitors and barristers attended independent schools, compared to just 7% of the population”.

Opening doors

So what can be done to open doors into the law?

The government is proposing mentoring schemes, outreach projects, work experience and a Social Mobility Commission.

But lawyers are also doing it for themselves.

International law firm Lovells is running a scheme called Ladder to Law, which is trying to get a wider range of youngsters to consider careers in the legal profession.

Run in partnership with the law faculty of the University of Oxford, the scheme is intended to reach out to pupils who might have never considered going to university otherwise, let alone seen themselves as potential lawyers.

With links with four secondary schools in London – and plans to involve four more – the company wants to provide sustained, long-term support for pupils who are interested in careers in law.

Clare Harris, head of recruiting in the firm’s London office, says “it’s about breaking down perceived barriers”.

Pupils might be living physically close to the big London law firms, she says, but “they may as well be living in another world”.

The idea of the Ladder to Law project is to send staff into schools to talk to pupils about the ways into careers in law and to invite interested youngsters into the law firm’s offices for work shadowing.

There will be chances to visit university law departments and advice about choosing A-levels and the applications process.

“It’s replicating the advantages that already exist for middle class families,” she says.

Early intervention

The intention is to intervene early enough to help give children the chance to raise their horizons – and for the support to be sustained. “It can’t be a flash in the pan,” she says.

Such contacts with law firms need to be made at school level, rather than waiting until the recruitment rounds at university, she believes.

Ms Harris says “social exclusion” can come in many different forms – but the end result is too often families in which youngsters have no expectations of going to university or entering a career such as law.

For them the idea of the legal profession never gets further than someone in a wig in a television drama, she says.

While seeking to encourage a wider range of applicants, Ms Harris is against using positive discrimination in the recruitment process for jobs.

Rather than any interventionist approach, she wants law firms and their associates to find their own ways to create opportunities.

Lovells has worked on the schools project with the Brokerage Citylink, an organisation which connects employers in the City of London with young people living in inner-London boroughs, who might otherwise never consider the careers available on their own doorstep.

Frank Funnell, business development manager for this not-for-profit organisation, says he wants Ladder to Law to “inspire many young people from disadvantaged areas to see law as a career they can aspire to”.

The dean of law faculty at Oxford, Timothy Endicott, said: “It is important for schools, universities and employers to work collaboratively to encourage bright and able candidates, who may feel socially excluded, to understand more about what university can offer and how a career in law can be achieved.”

Source : BBC News.

Bookmark It

Mishcon de Reya is opening its first office outside of London — in New York.

In an intriguing move, the firm is taking on 15 lawyers from Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton, who will be led by James McGuire, a fraud specialist and former Assistant US Attorney.

Kevin Gold, Mishcon’s managing partner, says is is motivated by the rise in litigation and regulatory work. “Opening our first international office in one of the major financial centres of the world is an exciting opportunity for both our business and our clients,” Gold says. “It is also timely. There has been a rise in the level of regulation globally. A presence in two of the world’s leading financial centres is exactly what clients of the expanded firm need.”

The move into Manhattan is unusually bold for a firm which in the past has preferred to remain under the radar.

Source : The Times

Bookmark It

Debenhams said it launched a divorce gift list service to reflect the increasing popularity of greeting cards, parties and cakes celebrating divorces as well as provide assistance to someone who has had to divide the assets.

“A divorce means that one partner will be leaving the marital home and therefore be left without any essentials in their new house,” Debenhams head of retail services Peter Moore said in a statement.

“Divorcing can be an expensive time and registering for a divorce gift list means that family and friends can help the newly separated begin their new life.”

London law firm Lloyd Platt & Company said before Christmas that it had been swamped with enquiries after it started offering gift vouchers for divorce advice.

Items on the Debenhams divorce gift list include cookware, cutlery, crockery, glasses, bed linen, towels, small electrical goods such as toasters and microwaves as well as non-iron shirts, large plasma screen TVs and computer games.

Forty five percent of British marriages are likely to end in divorce according to the Office for National Statistics.

Source : Yahoo News.

Bookmark It

Why are we asking this now?

This week Britain’s first crown court criminal trial to take place without a jury in more than 400 years started at the Royal Courts of Justice. The case, involving four men accused of a £1.75m armed robbery, is being heard by a judge, sitting alone, who will decide upon the men’s guilt or otherwise.

Why is the case being held without a jury?

Three previous trials have collapsed. During the first trial, one of the defendants, John Twomey, suffered a heart attack while in Belmarsh prison and was severed from the indictment. His six co-defendants were acquitted. At the second trial the jury was reduced to nine and was unable to reach a decision. At the third attempt the trial was stopped after allegations of jury tampering were heard by the judge. Because of the risk that the jury would be nobbled, the Court of Appeal decided last year decided that the only way to prevent this would be to hold the trial without one.

Is it controversial?

Hugely. The right to a trial by a jury of your peers is a fundamental principle of the British justice system and has been in place since the Magna Carta was signed in 1215. Yesterday’s trial prompted a small demonstration outside the High Court where banners were erected with messages reading “No Jury, No Justice”, and “Secret Evidence = Secret Injustice” were displayed. Those protesters fear that this is simply a way of going through the motions before eventually convicting the men.

But isn’t there a history of trials without juries?

The Court of Star Chamber was used in the 1600s and tried people charged with serious crimes without a jury. The Diplock Courts in Northern Ireland are the most recent examples of regular criminal trials being held without juries. They were introduced in 1972 to overcome the issues of jury tampering and intimidation commonly associated with the Troubles. The courts were intended only to deal with offences committed by Republican or Loyalist paramilitaries but in 2005 they heard the case of Abbas Boutrab, a suspected terrorist who was jailed for six years for downloading information on how to bomb a passenger jet.

The Diplock Courts were abolished in July 2007. The Criminal Justice Act 2003 came into effect at the same time, allowing for trials to be heard without juries where there are fears that jury tampering would take place or where measures to protect jurors were inadequate. The Twomey case is the first trial to make use of the provisions.

What difference does it make?

The protocol is very similar and should even make the process simpler because legal arguments about what the jury can and cannot hear are dispensed with and the process of swearing in a jury is done away with too. It should also shorten the lengthy amounts of time it often takes for juries to reach decisions.

Although, as the barristers and the judge discovered on Tuesday, a trial without a jury presents its own problems. There is the issue of, when deciding what is admissible and not as evidence, the judge will have to read all of the background to the case. If he decides something cannot be used by the prosecution the problem exists that he has already seen it. It could be used to the advantage of a prosecutor who, knowing he will fail, could submit an application for a defendant’s previous convictions to be aired in court. The judge will have to consider it and by doing so will therefore become aware of the information anyway. Opponents would suggest that for the judge to put this out of his mind when coming to a verdict is difficult.

Why do we have juries?

The idea is that criminals should be judged by a panel of ordinary men and women who will be able to view the case through untrained eyes rather than the forensic lens of a legal professional. Aside from the fact that it is completely open and so nullifies the threat of any type of establishment conspiracy against particular individuals, one of the many benefits attributed to it is that it allows a certain amount of discretion which the letter of the law does not. The phrase “a jury would never convict” is an oft-used one which suggests that those who are on trial for a crime where they have technically broken the law stand a better chance in front of a jury. The best example of such a case is that of Clive Ponting, who admitted leaking military documents, a criminal offence under the Official Secrets Act, but pleaded not guilty and was acquitted.

What are the flaws in the system?

The obvious flaw that is present in many juries is a lack of understanding. Many trials for offences such as theft are cut and dry and are easily tried by a jury. Part of the problem nowadays is that many trials are very complex and include numerous defendants and charges, some dependant on others. A fear in the legal profession is that, because a jury has to be 100 per cent sure of guilt before convicting, criminals are being acquitted simply because the jury does not understand the case and interprets this as “reasonable doubt”, the threshold needed for exoneration.

There is also a question over the standard of juries. With many cases cases lasting for weeks and months, people are reluctant to sit on a jury. And, as it is not compulsory, it can be avoided. People who have holidays booked or business or family commitments which cannot be altered are usually excused. This leaves the possibility that juries are made up of unemployed people or housewives or simply those who cannot think of an excuse to get out of sitting.

Could juryless trials have repercussions elsewhere?

Juryless trials also throw up the side issue of reporting restrictions. If there is no jury to prejudice does the press have carte blanche to write what it wants? Technically the answer is no. A judge can still claim to be prejudiced by press reports although in reality he is unlikely to do so. It would be embarrassing for a judge to effectively admit that he is so weak-minded that, having read a newspaper report, he has been prejudiced against the defendant and cannot now try case fairly. Also, in all probability, the judge will already be aware of any revelations made in the media during a trial.

Will we now see plenty more such cases?

The fact that this case has gone ahead without a jury will not now mean that cases are regularly heard this way. The Criminal Justice Act 2003 allows for this in cases only when the integrity of the jury is threatened. What the Twomey case will do is set a precedent which others may now be readier to repeat. Of course it could be argued that it will now mean that prosecutors, fearful a jury may be more likely to convict, will be keen to raise the issue of jury tampering in the hope that the trial will become juryless.

Should we have juryless trials in Britain?

Yes…

* In complex trials it is better that a legal professional judges the facts

* They essentially do away with reporting restrictions which hinder the freedom of the press

* Jury tampering could produce perverse results and this is the only way to eliminate it

No…

* Trial by one’s peers is what makes British justice the best in the world

* A judge deciding upon all aspects of a case is neither right or fair

* Having a jury allows for discretion that the letter of the law does not

Source : Independent

Bookmark It