Press round-up

Press shows no sympathy for sorry solicitors

A new Office for the Supervision of Solicitors booklet on handling complaints taxed the ingenuity of newspaper headline writers this month.

'Sorry seems to be the hardest word', said the Express, echoing the Elton John song - as did most of the articles; 'Solicitors told to end sorry state of affairs' was the Financial Times's front page effort; 'No mistake, solicitors know when to feel sorry' The Daily Telegraph reported (all 16 August).

The booklet's advice to say sorry, even if a solicitor disagrees with the complaint, caused much merriment.

'Solicitors, like some lovers, seem to think they should never have to say sorry' the FT went on, before concluding that while the backlog at the OSS is falling, 'changing the culture of the profession may prove harder'.

The rumpus over Cherie Booth QC's defence of the Human Rights Act earlier this month (see [2000] Gazette, 17 August, 12) continued with the papers turning their focus to her human rights chambers, Matrix, a name which 'sounds like a cross between a dot-com firm and an evil organisation from a James Bond film' according to The Observer (13 August).

The Independent reported that Matrix was 'locked in a symbolic battle to build Britain's leading human rights chambers' with Michael Mansfield QC's set, Tooks Court (12 August).

Plans to introduce a computer system that will assess the likelihood of criminals reoffending (18 August) saw Law Society Vice-President David McIntosh quoted expressing concern that people could be punished on the basis of what they might do in the future - a worry echoed in a Guardian editorial (21 August).

'It will not be able to predict what an individual will do, only place the individual into a risk category,' the paper said, concluding: 'Computers can be an aid but never a substitute for human discretion in delivering justice.'

Lawyers were more worried still by the lead story that appeared in The Independent (25 August) suggesting that Lord Justice Auld's review of the criminal justice system is to include a recommendation that juries should give written reasons for their verdicts.

Geoffrey Robertson QC disputed the argument that the right to a fair trial under the European Convention on Human Rights demanded it.

'It was the settled intention of the British lawyers who drafted the Convention in 1951 that it did not apply to juries,' he said.

However, an editorial backed the idea: 'It should be welcomed as breathing the fresh air of openness and accountability into a fusty jury system much in need of reform.'

A Times survey on public attitudes to institutions revealed that only 32% are satisfied with the courts, compared with 47% who are dissatisfied (25 August); in 1995, the figures were 34% and 35% respectively.

'The poll did not reveal why people were so dissatisfied with the courts,' the paper said.

'Anecdotal evidence suggests concern about apparently lenient sentences, the slow speed of justice, allegedly out-of-touch judges and the high cost of civil law.'

Finally, Leeds solicitor Marilyn Stowe gave the Daily Mail its ideal story - an 'infidelity test' (19 August).

Ms Stowe, chief examiner to the Law Society's family law panel, has ten tell-tale signs of cheating.

'Wives should worry if their husband starts to take an unusual interest in his appearance and launches into a dramatic health regime - but are they aware he has a new credit card in his name only for all those secret bills?' the paper reported.'Alarm bells should ring for husbands if their wife stops taking an interest in his day at work or cooking him a meal - but will they notice that she's hidden the phone bill with all its giveaway itemised calls?'

Neil Rose