Legal executives seek litigation and probate rights
Thursday 20 August 2009 by Neil Rose
A scheme allowing legal executives to set up their own law firms offering litigation and probate services has been put to the government.
The Institute of Legal Executives (ILEX) has applied for the power to grant members civil and family litigation and advocacy rights, as well as probate rights. ILEX would regulate their practices if they set up independently.
Some legal executives already run firms offering non-reserved work, while licensed conveyancers and chartered accountants have also gained probate rights in recent years.
ILEX has made a further application to grant litigation and advocacy rights to associate prosecutors, who now comprise a division of ILEX. The Director of Public Prosecutions will be prevented from conferring rights of audience on his staff from 2011.
ILEX chief executive Diane Burleigh said: ‘ILEX has had a long-term goal to provide greater career opportunities for our members, and to give clients a wider choice of lawyer. These applications represent a big step towards achieving this goal.’
Comments
why bother studying law now
why bother studying law now that any unqualified person is deemed capable of giving legal advice?
FREE KEBAB'S FROM THE SRA & THE LAW SOCIETY!
.....now that I have your attention, short and 'simples', after spending gazillions (not literally) on the LLB, LPC, student loans and various other associated costs, is there much of an elite profession left! it's bloody absurd!!!!!!!!!!
Why is the Law Society not procting the profession from diminishing?
You've got amateurs advising and advocating in immigration regulated under the OISC.
Accountants and Licensed Conveyancers (LC) conducting probate work, (point to note: solicitors cannot adise in a financial capacity without the relevant qualification at an additonal cost £££).
Julie Sheldon (a former director of Fox Hayes) is now practicing as a LC/director of Advantage Property Lawyers! Can do most work as a solicitors practice without the extortianate SRA fees and regulation.
Which would you choose?
And now this.......... It's scandalous!
I totally agree with the
I totally agree with the above posts. I wish I had a crystal ball before entering the profession, which has been nothing short of a pointless and expensive exercise. I advise anyone considering the legal profession to seriously consider looking elsewhere for a fulfilling and rewarding career. The Law Society appear to do nothing to protect our profession. Their mealy mouth protestations to Santander, Britannia Co-op, et al, over the treatment of sole practitioners and BVT is pathetic. Yet the SRA have the nerve to increase the cost of this year's practising certificate way over the level of inflation at a time when the profession as a whole is struggling to keep their head above water. This profession is going to hell in a handcart - I'm now planning my exist strategy.
Over supply of Lawyers
My experience of dealing with Fellows of the Institute of Legal Executives is that, without exception, they are competent lawyers who tend to be from lower socio-economic backgrounds. I do have one concern, however, regarding what is being proposed in the article above and that is the question as to whether Fellows will accept lower fees that qualified solicitors. Fellows should have parity of esteem and should not degrade themselves by working for less than solicitors.
The main problem with the legal profession at present is that there are far to many lawyers and lawyers to be and too few jobs available. Oversupply can result in lawyers working harder for less reward, good lawyers leaving the profession in disgust and increasing pressure on those that want to keep their jobs to achieve the bottom line at all costs.
Fellows should have confidence in their abilities. I could be wrong but I did hear that one former executive made the rank of Queens Counsel.
What is all the fuss about? I
What is all the fuss about?
I was a FILEX before qualifying as a solicitor. I did not undergo some mysterious transition from incompetent to competent when my certificate of admission as a solicitor was being signed by the Master of the Rolls.
Provided ILEX properly regulates members who carry out work for clients I cannot see what the issue is. If regulation for solicitors is so burdensome as to make them uncompetitve then this is the one and only issue which needs to be addressed by the Law Society when (and if) the application by ILEX is successful.
I believe that this is a
I believe that this is a great way forward for the legal profession so thank you for Annoymous on commenting what is all the fuss about? . As a FILEX myself, I am not surprised by some of the comments made by Solicitors here because even though ILEX has been around for over 20 years, most Solicitors still believe that FILEX's are less educated and less competent to be able to do the job. Personally I have been in the legal profession for over 17 years and had over 8 years fee earning experience before becoming a FILEX and I was trained by a 30 year qualified solicitor. I do not see why most Solicitors still believe that FILEX's are less competent because this is definitely not the case. Some people don't have the urge to go to University but this does not mean that they are not educated or competent enough to be able to go through the LLB route. In fact you will probably find that FILEX's have more practical experience as well as having the equivalent of a law degree which is not easy whilst working full time. I believe that this is the way forward and it is about time that FILEX's are recognised by the profession as being more than competant lawyers. I do however totally agree that the practices should be regulated correctly and in the same manner as solicitor practices.