James Bowers

711 comments By James Bowers

  • Quite right John, as ever, .and well said.

    In my 37 years as a solicior legal secretaries and receptionists, paralegals, law clerks, case workers, administrative assistants etc, etc, etc always know more law and practice and procedure than the "supervising" solicitor. They also say more sensible things about the law than any solicitor who ever lived. They interact better with the client than the solicitor and the clients like them more than they like the solicitor. Solicitors tend to talk with a snobby voice and tend to pomposity in their manner and that rubs clients (and others up the wrong way.

    The demise of the legal secretary is a disgrace and a stain on the profession. We now have solicitors doing typing at £500 per hour adding enormously to the cost of legal work.

    Anyone with half a brain knows that the (head) receptionist, at any law firm runs the firm and not the managing partner and any managing partner who ignores this does so at his peril.

  • It is fanciful to suggest that physical attendance at the office will not return to pre-covid levels. And there is good reason for this. Communicating in person at the office and via Zoom/Teams/Skype is like chalk and cheese. In person is infinitely superior - any solicitor who does not appreciate this is definitely going to have more professional negligence claims against them than one that does.

  • I am sorry but is it not patently obvious that the practice should be ended.

    It seems to be being honoured in the breach. The numbers being caught breaching would be the tip of the iceberg.

    I don't know which genius thought it up or why but it is obviously not working.

  • Look, it is a bit of an odd situation, because mobile phone technology is such that anyone in the Employment Tribunal hearing could record the days hearing on their mobile and type it up when they get home and save the recording in case there is a dispute as to what was said. Or they could pay a court authorised transcription service to type it up.

    But you will also find that on the statute books there is a prohibition on private recording of tribunal hearings.but you can probably get permission from the tribunal member. to privately record because the tribunal itself is not offering a transcription service.

    Commented on: 25 April 2022

    Employment Tribunal Kingsway

    Tribunal proceedings could be recorded

  • I guess another issue is how much was raking in at the family law bar - eg was he briefed by Fiona Shackleton for Prince Charles? - haha. And how puntilious was he at complying with the rules, practice directions and judges directions? Could there be an element of double standards at work here? I have found over the decades that most judges forget soon after elevation to the bench what it is like to work at the coal face of the legal profession ie private practice.

  • Neil, my understanding is that since at least Rupert Jacksons reforms proportionately of costs to what is at stake in the litigation is a factor the Costs Court can take into account.

    As to costs in family law cases there is a very strong rule that normally each party pays its own costs.

    Anonymous, my view is that litigation, not just in England but most of the common law world excluding the USA has always been prohibitively expensive for say 95% of the population the other 5% being made up of the very wealthy and the men and women of straw. Even on a damages based agreement or a conditional fee agreement the litigant still takes on the risk of an adverse costs order and someone has to pay the disbursements along the way.

    It is my understanding that the USA jettisoned the English costs rule that costs follow the event soon after the American Revolution in favour of each party pays their own costs win or lose. The English costs rule was seen as oppression of the American population by the English population.

  • from the other side.

    It has been like this for centuries
    Read Dickens Bleak House, Jarndyce v Jarndyce.

  • Why is this news?

    Have not rich litigants been running ?impecunious litigants into the ground for ceñturies?

    Only the very rich and those who do not fear bankruptcy can afford to litigate and the latter only with the benefit of a DBA or no win no fee with a solicitor. If a impecunious defendant does not have a cross claim1 he will need a solicitor willing to limit his fees to whatever costs can be recovered

  • The old rule was that it was the court nearest to where the defendant resided/operated its business. - that rule seemed to work ok for decades

  • In my view it needs to be acknowledged that remote hearings are a very poor substitute for the real McCoy

  • In any civilised society impecunious accused get legal representation provided by the State to ensure a fair trial.

    So yes in theory a strike by criminal barristers should work as trials would grind to a halt.

    However the last strike seemed to end in a pretty weak capitulation by the Bar - hence the need for another strike so soon.

  • They are called quia timet injunctions and they have been around for centuries.

  • I don't know who started the initiative Sir Andrew speaks of but they are to be congratulated. The Transparency Project also does excellent work and would have looked at family law.

    I am no legal historian but as I understand it many Englishmen lost their lives fighting the King to allow courts to be open to the public.

    I have always wondered why family law hearings were singled out for different treatment and I would be interested in the history of that.

    A recent decision on an application for an anonymity order in the Queens Bench Division Division is Various Claimants v IPSA Nicklin J 19 July 2021

    At para 35 Nicklin J sets out a handy checklist. Embarrassment and loss of privacy of the parties or their witnesses is no reason for ordering anonymity.

    Anonymity is a very blunt instrument as very often Joe Public is interested in a case where he knows or knows of a party or a witness. This point is made by Nicklin J at paras 37 to 39.

    In Scott v Scott the court recognised an exemption for the paternal jurisdiction concerning infants. So yes probably infant cases should get an exemption this may mean hiving off infant cases from other parts of the dispute eg financial remedies

    Probably the wholesale exemption for all family cases morphed out from the Scott v Scott exemption for infants and needs to be reined in.
    It would be difficult to see why any financial remedy suit (whether children are involved or not) should not be held in the full glare of publicity.

  • Janetta Davies your prose and reasoning are superb. and spot on.

    LCJ says last Thursday - "hearings will continue to be in-person unless a remote hearing is in the interests of justice"

    And then on the following Monday HHJ James says the reverse to what the LCJ said, ie all hearings will be remote.

    Go figure on that one.

    There is not doubt in my mind that the remote hearings are a 2nd class of service.

    And by the way I prefer a telepone hearing to a zoom - all zoom adds it confusing body language

  • Sounds like gobbledygook to me

  • I can't see a problem here - politicians like everyone else are entitled to maximise their income. As long as they comply with parliamentary disclosure rules.

  • Most of these legal conferences are a complete waste of time so good on Raab for exercising his freedom of association by electing not to attend.

  • Frankly I am surprised that they have time for this carry on.

    I for one do not believe they will achieve any reduction in floor space.

    Commented on: 18 November 2021

    Allen & Overy

    A&O could halve size of London HQ

  • Can Joe Public listen in on these remote hearings? ie are log in details for the remote hearing published somewhere prior to the remote hearing? Otherwise it is a breach of the rule that justice must be done and be seen to be done.

    The sooner they get rid of all these remote hearings the better.

  • Sounds like 2 massive cock-ups by GLP:

    1. Who doesn't know that a witness statement only becomes public when read in court.

    2. And then defaming P14Medical and Baillie.

    Heads need to roll at GLP.