Society calls for freeze on civil justice reform
The government must postpone all further civil justice reforms until lawyers have had sufficient time to prepare for change, the Law Society said today.
Society president Lucy Scott-Moncrieff welcomed justice secretary Chris Grayling’s decision to halt April’s expansion of the RTA Portal – confirmed over the Christmas break – as the ‘only sensible option’.
It followed lobbying by the Society and various claimant groups who argued that the electronic portal system would not be ready to cope with the expected increase in cases.
Scott-Moncrieff said, following the climbdown over the portal, it was now time to consider delaying the implementation of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act, also due for the start of April.
‘However much the Law Society and its members may dislike some of the changes being introduced by the LASPO Act, we recognise that parliament has spoken,’ she said.
‘Our concern now is that rushed and ill-judged implementation will damage public confidence in the justice system, which is in nobody’s interests.
‘It is a sign of good government to spend more time ensuring that changes are properly thought through so that everybody, including practitioners, has time to prepare properly.’
In a letter to the justice secretary in November, Scott-Moncrieff advised that the profession and legal system needed time to assimilate changes if they are to be implemented smoothly.
She pointed to the Woolf reforms in 1999 which were ready more than a year before they were implemented. In contrast, a consultation on fixed costs for personal injury work finished only today - and rules governing one-way cost-shifting have yet to be approved.
The government issued a statement in December saying that a new protocol for the RTA Portal was to be announced ‘in the new year’, but that has yet to materialise.
Comments
Unspoken Truths
I do not believe that I am alone in thinking that the reported comments of the President are sadly an accurate reflection of a discredited stategy for coping with change.
Change, and the prospects of change, should always be carefully scrutinised to ensure that justice is not being supplanted by crude political short termism.
LASPO should have been more vigorously examined as a bill and its shortcomings shouted from the roof tops by our representatives. These days it is no longer enough to make civilised arguments when dealing with a hostile executive, especially when your own CEO is rubbishing the profession when he said "It is no longer enough to be a solicitor"!
The importance of the Law is such that lawyers must be vigilant at all times to its contamination by those with shabby commercial and political motives.
Madam President I am sorry, but your actions above are just further pitiful examples of "too little too late" in terms of the interests of our profession being properly looked after
I entirely agree. The Law
I entirely agree.
The Law Society is entirely supine with regard to counteracting political moves against the profession. By the time the LS and its people, both Council and officials have woken up, the argument is practically over.
Turkeys call for freeze on
Turkeys call for freeze on Xmas cull.
Speaking not only as a lawyer
Speaking not only as a lawyer ( in house) but someone subject to a vicious and entirely unmeritorous private claim fuelled by BTE insurance, referral and success fees these changes cannot come soon enough.
You have no idea how helpless you are, and how much it will cost you ( irrecoverable ) even to escape with your skin in the face of a meritless claim, where the claimants solicitors have got it past the insurers initially, until it happens to you. It seems to me that private individuals with property, are now being targeted as medicial claims and personal injury claims become harder to pursue against large insitututions, have seen several in the press, and know of several others. If we all insure for everything, we will all pay through increased premiums. The costs risk balance between claimants and defendants has to be corrected, sooner rather than later.
So come on Law Society, don't just stand up for worthy claimants, and lawyers who make a living through this - think about the inherent injustice to defendants ( private or corporate) not being able to defend themselves even against meritless claims without huge costs risk, to the increased insurance we all pay because of this, and the suffering of many defendants placed in this no win situation, which is never mentioned, but which is going on all the time the present imbalance prevails.
Did you know ?
If your defence has sufficient merit, as you say it has, then you should be able to find a lawyer, to act for you, to defend the matter under a 'no win, no fee' agreement. We will gladly look at it for you on this basis, but you had better consider this option before April, after which you will be probably deprived of it with the introduction of QOCS ! Be careful what you wish for.
(1) How would payment of a
(1) How would payment of a referral fee make any difference to the claim against you?
(2) How can there be a recoverable success fee if the claim is funded by BTE Insurance?
(3) How will the forthcoming reforms help, given that they (supposedly) intend to INCREASE take-up of BTE?
(4) If it is "vicious" and "entirely unmerited" (as opposed to being a claim which whilst having merit is one with which you disagree), why haven't you (successfully) applied to have it struck out and obtained a costs order which you can enforce against the BTE Insurer?
Where is the evidence ?
Where is the evidence that this sorry excuse for a Government treats the views of solicitors with any respect , let alone listens to their arguments at all ? There is a difference between listening to an argument, investigating and putting forward a reasoned rejection, and (what we have here) - across the board, a failure to listen, let alone consult . It`s an insult to all those interested in preserving the rule of law.
Please act according to the evidence which is wholly against aiming at a cosy wishy-washy liberal (with a small "l" ) consensus. Now I know what the miners felt like !
We are all doomed!
The horse has already bolted! There is nothing to do now but await the redundancies. Or maybe LSEW could take advice from Cherie Booth's new ABS.
Society calls for freeze on civil justice reform
I would like to ask the Law Society President the following questions:
1. Why has the Law Society left it so late in the day to start agitating against the grossly unfair civil justice changes?
2. What concrete action is the Law Society going to take?
3. Does the Law Society understand that our political class does not actually listen to polite, reasoned arguments?
4. Has the Law Society heeded the example of Richard Branson, Abu Qatada etc, who do not hesitate to make legal challenges?
5. Are you aware that many of us in the profession feel the Law Society is supine and ineffectual when it comes to fighting our corner?
Answers awaited with interest.
Agitate, educate, organise?
The Society could not cause agitation to the government even if it wanted to, Boris (I call you Boris because I have actually met you). The Society is moaning about the mechanics of implemetation in respect of something which has already been decided. It's a case of "OK, you've decided to release the horse, but shouldn't we put some WD40 on the hinges of the stable door to make its escape smoother?".
We need an elected President
We need an elected President who is paid a salary for a fixed term of say 5 years.
Until then we will continue to feel as solicitors that the LS does not represent solicitors. Salary could comer from sale odf some LS real estate.
Fact is there stated position is that they are not a trade union - answer received when asking for some action from them !
Solution is we need to join a trade union !!
Eventually solicitors will say enough is enough . shurely ?!
Yes, of course we do! And you
Yes, of course we do!
And you are right, we need to sell the Victorian pile on Chancery Lane-neither use nor ornament to most of the profession. It does however give the LS hierarchy a sense of importance which is entirely misplaced. Get rid of it!