Posted in btesygbj

Personal injury interest calculation tables

first_img Table two – accumulated total of days 1 October 1991 10.25% 1 February 1977 10% May 35.81 29.79 23.79 17.79 11.79 5.77 0.50 October 153.80 139.66 126.54 116.26 107.50 99.50 91.50 1 June 2009 1.5% July 157.08 143.25 129.56 118.84 109.52 101.52 93.52 1 April 1984 12% 1 December 1981 15% 1 November 1988 12.25% August 155.98 142.04 128.54 117.97 108.84 100.84 92.84 June 86.15 78.15 70.15 62.15 54.97 47.97 41.30 October 33.29 27.27 21.27 15.27 9.27 3.26 1 September 1966 5.5% March 36.81 30.79 24.79 18.79 12.79 6.78 1.01 The standard rate of interest on general damages for pain and suffering and loss of amenities in personal injury cases was fixed at 2% per annum by the House of Lords in Birkett v Hayes [1982] 1 WLR 816; [1982] 2 All ER 70. This was confirmed as appropriate by the Court of Appeal in Lawrence v Chief Constable of Staffordshire [2000] the Times, 25 July. The appropriate rate of interest for special damages is the rate, over the period for which the interest is awarded, which is payable on the court special account. After seven years at 6%, this rate was reduced to 3% per annum on 1 February 2009, to 1.5% on 1 June 2009 and to 0.5% on 1 July 2009. Interest since June 1987 has been paid daily on a 1/365th basis, even in a leap year such as 1992. In cases of continuing special damages, half the appropriate rate from the date of injury to the date of trial is awarded. In cases where the special damages have ceased and are thus limited to a finite period, there are conflicting Court of Appeal decisions as to whether the award should be half the appropriate rate from injury to trial (Dexter v Courtaulds [1984] 1 All ER 70) or the full special account rate from a date within the period to which the special damages are limited (Prokop v DHSS [1985] CLY 1037). The House of Lords has confirmed that Department for Work and Pensions benefit should be disregarded when calculating interest on special damages (Wadey v Surrey County Council [2000] 1 WLR 820 (HL)). The relevant rates since 1965, which are conveniently set out in the White Book at note 7.0.9, are reproduced in table three. Table one records the total of these rates from January 1989. In the left-hand column is shown the month from the first day of which interest is assumed to run. The right-hand column shows the percentage interest accumulated from the first day of each month to 1 October 2009. Continued use can be made of this table by adding to the figures therein 1/365th of the special account rate from 1 October 2009 onwards. Precision may easily be attained through table two, which records the accumulated total of days at the end of each of the next six months. September 154.87 140.83 127.52 117.10 108.16 100.16 92.16 1 July 2009 0.5% 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 May 86.83 78.83 70.83 62.83 55.56 48.56 41.81 April 36.30 30.28 24.28 18.28 12.28 6.27 0.75 1 May 1988 9.5% 1 March 1973 8% 1 July 1982 13% July 34.80 28.79 22.79 16.79 10.79 4.77 0.13 1 November 1989 14.25% 1 January 1980 15% April 87.49 79.49 71.49 63.49 56.14 49.14 42.30 1 March 1979 12.5% October 83.48 75.48 67.48 59.65 52.63 45.63 39.29 From January 89.48 81.46 73.46 65.46 57.88 50.86 43.86 1 April 1987 11.75% 1 February 2002 6% May 159.25 145.63 131.57 120.56 110.85 102.85 94.85 1 March 1969 6.5% February 88.81 80.76 72.78 64.78 57.29 50.27 43.27 1 March 1970 7% November 82.80 74.80 66.80 59.05 52.03 45.03 38.78 31 January 2010 123 July 85.50 77.50 69.50 61.50 54.39 47.39 40.80 1 February 1993 8% 1 August 1999 7% 1 April 1983 12.5%center_img 1 April 1971 7.5% 1 March 1968 6% 1 April 1991 12% August 34.29 28.28 22.28 16.28 10.28 4.26 0.08 November 32.78 26.76 20.76 14.76 8.76 2.75 April 160.32 146.80 132.55 121.40 111.51 103.51 95.51 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 31 March 2010 182 February 162.42 149.11 134.86 123.08 112.81 104.81 96.81 Explanatory note: suppose that interest runs from 1 June 2003 to 13 December 2009. The total to the end of September 2009 is 35.30%. If the rate remains at 0.5% pa, the addition from 1 October 2009 to 13 December 2009 will be 0.50%x(73/365) =0.10%. Thus the grand total from 1 June 2003 to 13 December 2009 will be 35.30+0.10=35.40%.These tables should assist all those concerned with interest since 1985 to make calculations fluently. The listed rates provide the base for a calculation from 1965. Although the tables’ primary application is to interest on special damages in personal injury cases, they are equally applicable to any other case in which the special account is used in calculating interest. Table three – rates of interest on special account since 1965 31 October 2009 31 March 88.17 80.17 72.17 64.17 56.73 49.73 42.81 December 32.29 26.27 20.27 14.27 8.27 2.25 June 35.30 29.28 23.28 17.28 11.28 5.26 0.25 1 March 1974 9% November 152.70 138.45 125.67 115.39 106.82 98.82 90.82 January 163.53 150.32 136.07 123.95 113.68 105.48 97.48 1 January 1989 13% 28 February 2010 151 1 March 1982 14% August 84.82 76.82 68.82 60.82 53.80 46.80 40.29 December 151.53 137.28 124.82 114.55 106.16 98.16 90.16 June 158.15 144.42 130.55 119.69 110.18 102.18 94.18 December 82.14 74.14 66.14 58.48 51.46 44.46 38.29 1 January 1987 12.25% September 84.14 76.14 68.14 60.22 53.20 46.80 39.78 September 33.78 27.77 21.77 15.77 9.77 3.75 0.04 1 December 1987 11% 30 November 2009 61 1 August 1988 11% 1 October 1965 5% 1 January 1981 12.5% February 37.27 31.27 25.25 19.25 13.25 7.25 1.24 1 August 1986 11.5% 31 December 2009 92 1 November 1987 11.25% January 37.78 31.78 25.76 19.76 13.76 7.76 1.75 March 161.43 148.01 133.76 122.27 112.19 104.19 96.19 1 February 2009 3% 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 clear=”all”> Rodney Nelson-Jones is a partner at Field Fisher Waterhouselast_img read more

Posted in yxonktcq

Conservative manifesto promise to ‘rebuild confidence’ in justice system

first_imgA Conservative government would carry out a ‘fundamental review’ of legal aid, and introduce measures to ‘rebuild confidence’ in the criminal justice system, it said in its manifesto published today. The manifesto, An invitation to join the government of Britain, promises to look at alternative methods of legal aid funding. It also pledges to review and reform libel laws to protect freedom of speech, reduce costs and discourage libel tourism. The party says it will fight back against the ‘crime and anti-social behaviour that blights our communities’, taking steps to ‘reduce the causes of crime’ and ‘put the criminal justice system on the side of responsible citizens’. It claims that violent crime against the person has risen sharply under Labour, while police officers spend more time on paperwork than they do out on patrol. David Cameron’s party will redress this by introducing tougher measures against knife crime and cutting ‘paperwork to get police out on the street’, the manifesto says. The party pledges to ‘rebuild confidence in the criminal justice system so that people know it is on the side of victims and working for law-abiding people not criminals’. It will ‘introduce honesty into sentencing’ and examine the case for greater parliamentary scrutiny of sentencing guidelines so the public is confident their views are accounted for in deciding sentences, it says. While recognising the need for criminal sanctions like ASBOs and fixed-penalty notices, the manifesto describes these as ‘blunt instruments that often fail their purpose of deterring people from committing more crime’. A Tory government would introduce a series of early-intervention measures, including ‘grounding orders’ to enable the police to use instant sanctions to deal with anti-social behaviour. To improve the experience of the criminal justice system for victims and their families, the party will seek to ensure they are better informed about the progress of criminal proceedings and the release of offenders. A Conservative government would also change the law so that anyone acting reasonably to stop a crime or apprehend a criminal is not arrested or prosecuted, the manifesto says. It says the party will give householders greater legal protection if they have to defend themselves against intruders. On civil liberties, the manifesto says Labour has ‘subjected Britain’s historic freedoms to unprecedented attack’. To protect citizens’ freedom from state encroachment, Cameron’s party will replace the Human Rights Act with a UK Bill of Rights. On families, the Conservative manifesto says the party will give families ‘more control over their lives’ by extending the right to request flexible working to every parent with a child under 18 and introducing a new system of flexible parental leave which lets parents share maternity leave between them. It says the party will review family law in order to increase the use of mediation when couples break up and look at how best to provide greater access rights to non-resident parents and grandparents. Of interest to education lawyers, on schooling matters the Conservatives will make it easier for teachers to deal with violent incidents and remove disruptive pupils, by removing the power for head teachers’ decisions on exclusions to be ‘overruled by bureaucrats’. In addition, the party says it will give teachers the strongest possible protection from false accusations and reinforce powers of discipline by strengthening home-school behaviour contracts.last_img read more

Posted in yxonktcq

The practicalities of using judicial review

first_img In 2007 a judicial review was threatened against the London Borough of Islington over proposals for a new academy in Islington. The proposal was withdrawn for reconsideration. To many clients, judicial review provides the opportunity to seek redress for the subjectively perceived wrongdoing of a public authority. It is a perception replete with misunderstanding and contradiction. Most often the complaint is that a body charged with a responsibility to provide public service has ignored the popular will and chosen a course that appears to the complainant to be in its own interest. With righteous indignation, the complainant ironically wishes to place their trust in the unelected judiciary to take a stand for the people’s liberty against the oppressive system, to do what’s only right and just in the eyes of the common person. Some will even extend that optimistic faith in the judiciary to their wish to challenge any person or organisation exercising authority in relation to them as individuals. Trade unions, for example, are often thought to be vulnerable to judicial review of their controversial decisions upon the initiative of a disaffected individual. There is a particularly important reason to do this – judicial review is a two-stage process in court and there is a pre-action protocol to be followed to get there. At the first court stage the claimant must secure the court’s permission to proceed to the second stage of a full hearing. Occasionally the two steps are conflated into one hearing at the option of the presiding judge, but even then, notionally at least, two steps will be taken. It is important to securing permission that the court should have clarity about the legal issues and about exactly what is at stake. Then there is the evidence strategy. In judicial review, the court is normally construing the law. The pre-action protocol for judicial review requires complete candour in the provision of evidence. Evidence of fact is usually uncontested and supported by exhibited documents. Some relevant evidence of fact may be introduced about the sequence of events leading to a decision and its implementation, and defendant evidence is particularly significant in claims where inadequacy of consultation is claimed. However, again, contest over this evidence is rare. It follows that evidence before the court in judicial review is normally on affidavit. The sworn statements for applicant and defendant are likely to be different in what they say about the impact of a contested act or omission. It is important that these issues are addressed by witnesses whom the court will respect and acknowledge as authoritative. The courts are not interested in considering for their own sake obscure arguments over acts and omissions that in the end have made little difference to anyone. The judge must be clearly told, by evidence as expert and authoritative as is available, that the judgment they will give actually matters to the lives of real people. There is one common type of judicial review case that illustrates many of the strategic considerations in the pursuit of a claim. It is the allegation that the public authority concerned has failed to carry out a proper consultation before making a decision. Even when statute does not expressly require consultation prior to the making of a decision, the courts have applied, as settled law, rules and principles which require that public decision-making bodies must consult meaningfully about what they propose to do. However, here again, the client’s expectations of what the court can or will do can often be confounded. The client may have an unassailable belief that if the decision-makers had only listened to what consultees were saying, they would certainly have been convinced. The fact they were not is, the client will believe, incontestable evidence that the consultation has not been proper. This claimant then expects the court to judge the issues. The court will not. The law insists that consultation must be genuine. All that is relevant must be taken into account and all that is irrelevant must be denied influence. The consultation must also be conducted with an open mind, but this does not mean that the decision-makers cannot come to the consultation without an opinion. They may already have narrowed down the options by discarding those preferred by consultee groups. They are not even required to offer choices. A consultation on a single proposal may be entirely proper provided that the proposers are at least open to being convinced that they ought to go back and think again. They are never required to call upon the consultee constituents to make their decision for them. A lawyer will have a lot of questions to ask of a client wanting to sue the system. Some of them the client will find surprising, perhaps even frustrating their lay expectations. There really is no point in feeding expectations with undue optimism. However, once all the boxes have been ticked and the claim proceeds to a successful conclusion, the outcome can be very satisfying – and not only for the client. Most lawyers I know who have acted for successful judicial review claimants have enjoyed some professional satisfaction in striking a blow for the common person against the system. It is all to do with our shared commitment to the enforcement of Lord Denning’s assertion: ‘Be you ever so high, the law is above you.’ So, now you have got your client with a legitimate interest and the complaint is that a public body is, in the client’s terms, ‘out of order’. You have just entered the dark wood. You are going to need a strategy to penetrate it. First you have got to find an act or an omission to be reviewed. The making of a final decision to proceed with a proposal can be treated as an act and the publication by a public authority of guidance which is claimed to be legally wrong is also an act that is reviewable. However, a mere proposal cannot be made subject to judicial review unless the authority concerned had no legal power even to put forward the proposal. When a client comes along with a proposal they would want to challenge if it were taken further, the proper step is to write setting out the client’s case. This is to be coupled with a warning that judicial review will be sought unless the proposal is amended or abandoned. You then have to pin down at least one of three possible complaints: Managing expectations But Bracewell J also found that Mrs Evans had been lawfully suspended after further allegations of pupil mistreatment were made against her, and therefore she should not return to St Mary’s Junior School in Caldicot, south Wales, until after a three-day hearing had been held. In her ruling the judge said: ‘Mrs Evans faces very serious allegations, but she has been presented with three versions [of disciplinary proceedings] inconsistent with one another and none applicable with disciplining a head teacher.’ Evans had been suspended on full pay after being accused of slapping a special needs pupil. She was convicted of assault but cleared on appeal. The suspension continued because police were investigating further claims of mistreatment. However, in October 2000 the Crown Prosecution Service said it would be taking no further action. the authority has failed to do something it was legally required to do; the authority has done something it didn’t have the power to do; the people responsible for making the decision in the name of the authority have acted irrationally. It is the last of these that many clients will latch on to in order to support the belief that the court will fairly sort things out for them. They tend to substitute ‘unreasonably’ for ‘irrationally’. The test is definitely one of irrationality, once described by a senior lawyer, with only a little exaggeration, as an allegation that the decision-makers must be regarded as having temporarily taken leave of their senses. People – even those in jobs with high levels of decision-making responsibility – quite often act in ways that many other people consider unreasonable. The courts flatly refuse, in this context, to allow themselves to be the arbiters of different points of view of what is reasonable. Many practitioners have found it an uphill struggle to explain to clients that it just does not work like that, so provoking only contemptuous criticism that the law is an ass, or that the legal adviser is a wimp too dim to understand that the law is supposed to be about fairness and justice. Lesson one in judicial review is that democracy prevails and parliament is supreme – even in matters of European law, although this becomes, these days, rather more theoretical than real. The point is that if a public body or public official has the authority of statute enacted by the elected parliament to do as it has done, then it is not for unelected judges to intervene. Nor is it for judges to interfere by way of judicial review process in the affairs of private organisations. Private organisations may be answerable to the courts for offences against the law itself and the legally protected rights of others – including their own shareholders or members – but their decisions cannot be reviewed by reference to any duty considered to be owed to the public at large. That is what judicial review is all about. It is the court performing the public function of ensuring that other bodies with functions to be carried out for the public good do not do that which they have no legal right to do and do not fail to do what they are legally required to do. Moving on to lesson two – not everyone can be a complainant just because they are a member of the public. Your client has to be someone who has an interest in the outcome of the case that is greater than that of the generality of members of the public. Lessons learned In 1986 Sudbury Infants School headteacher Maureen McGoldrick was suspended by Brent Council for allegedly making a racist remark to one of their officials. A judicial review action, supported by the NUT, was threatened, but the issue was resolved by a direction of the secretary of state. It is pretty obvious then that claims based on irrationality alone are going to be very difficult indeed. If that is all you have, you are likely to have to show that this public authority, accountable to an electorate or to the elected representative of an electorate, has done something so silly that no reasonable person could consider it sensible. More commonly, irrationality arguments are attached, as a ‘belt and braces’ job, to claims also made out on the other grounds. Even then some strategic thinking is necessary. If the irrationality claim cannot stand up, there really is no point in running the risk of leading the court in the wrong direction. To strengthen the case on either of the first two grounds, you will need to understand clearly what the law actually says and what purpose it has in the public interest. Law is always better understood and applied when its regulatory objective is understood in social terms. That is central to judicial review. When what is being challenged is the way in which a public authority is carrying out a public duty, it cannot be expected that the court will construe statute in a purist way which would defeat or limit its purpose. So if you are dealing with something the authority was legally required to do, but has not done, be as precise as possible in defining the omission. Similarly, if it is a matter of saying that the authority has exceeded its powers, be as precise as possible about the extent of the relevant power and the definition of the act that is said to have gone beyond it. The judge ruled that Blunkett had acted outside the powers of the 1991 Teachers’ Pay and Conditions Act. He said the threshold standards should have been placed before parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the School Teachers Review Body. ‘Albeit with good intentions’, the education secretary had effectively ‘evaded scrutiny’ by legislators. In 2008 a judicial review was threatened against Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council over the closure of Hayward Community School. The issue was resolved by the postponement of the closure to allow for proper consultation. Out of order The judge declared that education secretary David Blunkett’s Education (School Teachers’ Pay and Conditions) (No 2) Order 2000, which came into effect on 1 April and effectively rewrote the contracts of 400,000 teachers, was a ‘hybrid and flawed’ document. Double trouble In March 2001, Marjorie Evans, the Monmouthshire headteacher who was cleared on appeal of slapping a 10-year-old pupil, won the right to a fair disciplinary hearing after High Court judge Mrs Justice Bracewell ruled that her employer had not followed proper rules and procedures. In R v Secretary of State for Education and Employment, ex parte National Union of Teachers [2000] a High Court judge ruled that a statutory instrument setting conditions for appraisal and access to higher pay for teachers was beyond the powers given under the Education Act 1996. As a result the statutory instrument was declared void. Belt and braces The National Union of Teachers has turned to judicial review in several prominent cases, often with dramatic results. Consulting room Graham Clayton is an education law consultant and former senior solicitor at the National Union of Teacherslast_img read more

Posted in klauqjuv

Law theory test

first_imgI read Jonathan Goldsmith’s recent column with more than a passing interest. The perspective with which I read it was the exact opposite of the German lawyer to whom he alludes, in that I have just moved from private practice into academia. This I have done with no more academic clout than a law degree and the Scottish equivalent of the LPC. I suspect this is another thing which would surprise the inquisitive German, who will be au fait with the rigid standards of the German academy. My career choice also surprised a number of people in the UK, but they were surprised for pragmatic reasons which chime with Mr Goldsmith’s piece. The standard reaction was a mixture of bemusement and polite encouragement, garnished with a barely suppressed urge to tell me how much damage I was doing to my earnings potential – many did not suppress the urge at all. Having made the switch, I hope to play my part in a vibrant law school that in turn plays a part in producing the graduates that will be the lifeblood of the profession in years to come. Like many other law schools, my own draws from a variety of experiences and cultures. I hope my experiences of practising Scots and English law and an eight-month spell on secondment to industry will add a little bit of business acumen and pragmatism to that mix. With that in mind, it strikes me as churlish to think that there may be no place for the German post-doc holder at a City firm. Sure, they might not have had the ‘at the coalface’, ‘character-building’ experience of preparing 74 intimations for a composite debenture at three in the morning to meet an unrealistic deadline, but they will have other experiences and skills that can be used. One English client once paid the great compliment that having a Scots lawyer involved in a deal somehow brought solidity. Why that would be I have no idea; a certain je ne sais quoi? We already have a broad church of ideas in the island chain that runs from St Helier to Lerwick. Broadening the ideas the church draws from may not be a bad thing. There are many other important issues raised by Mr Goldsmith’s column, but I will restrict myself to one further observation. In a recession, the holder of a simple law degree may feel a few extra letters post-surname is a benefit to career prospects, but is this really the case? If it is not, it is as much a concern for universities as it is for the profession. Practice without theory is dangerous; theory without practice is dead. Malcolm M Combe, lecturer in law, University of Aberdeenlast_img read more

Posted in kbksjyau

Third-party funding of litigation – views from the US and Australia

first_imgThe recondite topic of third-party funding of litigation has been in the news over the summer. The Gazette reported last month that the Civil Justice Council is on the verge of agreeing a code of conduct for third-party funders, and that an association for funders will be set up. The topic is being discussed in the US as well. By way of background, the American Bar Association’s Commission on Ethics 20/20 published an issues paper last November, seeking comments. The Commission feels that third-party funding is one of the Big Three consequences of the impact on the legal profession of globalisation and technology, the other two being outsourcing and investment in law firm equity. (I know that, given the frequency with which I cite their work, I sometimes seem like the EU arm of the Commission. But they are having serious discussions about serious issues.) Their paper on this topic is worth reading, if only for the poetic list of ancient doctrines that used to deal with the equivalent of third-party funding – ‘maintenance, champerty, barratry, usury, and unconscionability’. Their document ends with a long list of questions, including: may a lawyer share confidential information with a third-party funder consistent with the lawyer’s duty of confidentiality? May a lawyer who is representing a client on a matter also have an equity interest in the funder that is funding the client? What duties does a lawyer have to counsel the client when either the lawyer or the client identifies a funder? Now the New York City Bar – obviously an important player, given the law firms based there – has just weighed in with its opinion. They say that ‘from the legal ethics perspective, perhaps the greatest concern stems from a financing company’s involvement in the details of a claimant’s case’. In other words, to find out the risk of the investment, the funder may need to know about confidential matters. Perhaps the quickest guide to what the City Bar really thinks is in their summary, where they say that the practice is ‘not unethical per se’, which is hardly a ringing endorsement. Nevertheless, the opinion gives interesting background: third-party funding began in the US in the early 1990s with a handful of small lenders and cash advances; within a decade as many as 100 companies were involved; and now the aggregate amount of funding outstanding is estimated to exceed $1bn. They conclude that a lawyer representing a client who is party, or considering becoming party, to a third-party funding arrangement should be aware of the potential ethical issues and be prepared to address them as they arise. Australia boasts that it all began there. For instance, they have a third-party funder called IMF, which is listed on the Australian Securities Exchange. Apparently it funds less than 5% of the 350 or so cases it looks at each year. Between October 2001 and December 2010, the company funded 118 cases to completion. Of these, according to IMF, 79 resulted in settlements and 9 were outright victories, while 5 cases were lost and 25 withdrawn, bringing the company around $187m (out of settlements and awards totalling almost $900m). It currently has around $1.7bn in active claims under management. There are 9 ex-lawyers on IMF’s 23-strong staff, former senior litigators, who make the recommendations on intervention, with a four-person committee making the final decision. Now IMF is looking to expand into the US market. It is significant that free-market initiatives like this – take alternative business structures as another – are undertaken first in Australia, with the UK following. The USA, the home of free markets, comes to inspect them gingerly, but usually seems to conclude that the initiative is not really for them.last_img read more

Posted in pmtdromy

No turning back from liberalisation

first_img John Wotton is president of the Law Society I expect that very soon the Solicitors Regulation Authority will announce that it has granted the first group of licences for alternative business structures if, indeed, an announcement to this effect has not already been made by the time this article is published. The end of the profession? I think not. At an event held by the SRA to mark the starting point of its regulation of ABSs, as it reviews the 100-plus applications it has already received, I offered the following reflections at this seminal moment in the development of our profession. ABSs are unquestionably a significant innovation in legal practice – not just in this jurisdiction, but also when viewed from an international perspective. The degree of liberalisation of ownership of legal practices which has been permitted under the Legal Services Act goes way beyond what is allowed in almost any other country. Allowing ABSs is not axiomatically either a good thing or a bad thing – they bring with them both opportunities and risks. It is primarily for the market – through the owners and managers of legal practices and those who wish to invest in them – to identify and pursue the opportunities which have been created by these new structures. The Law Society sees it as its function to do its best to ensure that the profession is fully aware of the options now available and the potential implications of change, so that solicitors can take the most rational decisions concerning the future of their practices and careers. Also, at one level, it is for the same group of people, namely those who are active in the legal services market, to manage the financial, client service and reputational risks that ABSs create. It is very much in the interests of managers of legal practices to do just this. Particular risks arise from external ownership of law firms – and the Law Society applauds the measures that have been adopted by the SRA to minimise and manage these risks. It is vital that these measures are successful, if harm to clients and to the legal profession’s standing, at home and abroad, is to be avoided. I anticipate that ABSs will accelerate a move towards greater efficiency and consolidation which is already in progress. It is essential that this consolidation does not reduce competition, or lead to inadequate client choice, or to relative inaccessibility of legal representation and advice. From the perspective of competition in the market, it is important that neither increased regulatory burdens on smaller firms, nor brand investment by larger players, raise barriers to entering the market that may eventually allow the largest businesses to charge uncompetitive prices. The possibility of new small-scale entry has always been a vital aspect of the competitiveness dynamism of our sector; of its ability to evolve to meet changing client demand; and of its ability to offer real and accessible choice to clients of all types. It is equally essential that firms which decide to close as a result of increased competition, do so in a way that poses no risk to clients and does not place an unwelcome cost burden on the profession as a whole. The cost of a single SRA intervention – borne by the profession – is substantial. The rapid change in the legal market which will evolve over the coming years will pose challenges to firms, the SRA and the Law Society alike. The Law Society looks forward to working with the managements of ABS organisations, as we do with other firms, in pursuance of our role in supporting all solicitors in whatever environment they practise. We will encourage new corporate entrants to the legal sector to engage fully with the profession in its mission to serve the rule of law, support access to justice, and ensure that a legal career remains open to all with the requisite ability and ambition. I congratulate the SRA on the intensive work it has done in bringing the ABS process to, as it were, the banks of the Rubicon, and to thank it for the responsiveness it has shown to issues of concern, which have been raised by the Law Society and others, in the course of the journey on which we have travelled together so far. There is no turning back from this Rubicon, however, and we will continue to support the SRA in meeting the challenges, both expected an unexpected, which will confront them as the liberalisation of our legal markets continues to unfold. Much work lies ahead for both the Law Society and the SRA over the coming months, as issues relating to ABSs are identified and managed, in the interests of the public and the regulatory objectives of the Legal Services Act.last_img read more

Posted in ufemdfrz

Reasons to be cheerful

first_imgStay at the forefront of thought leadership with news and analysis from award-winning journalists. Enjoy company features, CEO interviews, architectural reviews, technical project know-how and the latest innovations.Limited access to building.co.ukBreaking industry news as it happensBreaking, daily and weekly e-newsletters Get your free guest access  SIGN UP TODAY To continue enjoying Building.co.uk, sign up for free guest accessExisting subscriber? LOGIN Subscribe to Building today and you will benefit from:Unlimited access to all stories including expert analysis and comment from industry leadersOur league tables, cost models and economics dataOur online archive of over 10,000 articlesBuilding magazine digital editionsBuilding magazine print editionsPrinted/digital supplementsSubscribe now for unlimited access.View our subscription options and join our community Subscribe now for unlimited accesslast_img read more

Posted in pmtdromy

Similar, but not the same

first_imgGet your free guest access  SIGN UP TODAY Stay at the forefront of thought leadership with news and analysis from award-winning journalists. Enjoy company features, CEO interviews, architectural reviews, technical project know-how and the latest innovations.Limited access to building.co.ukBreaking industry news as it happensBreaking, daily and weekly e-newsletters To continue enjoying Building.co.uk, sign up for free guest accessExisting subscriber? LOGIN Subscribe now for unlimited access Subscribe to Building today and you will benefit from:Unlimited access to all stories including expert analysis and comment from industry leadersOur league tables, cost models and economics dataOur online archive of over 10,000 articlesBuilding magazine digital editionsBuilding magazine print editionsPrinted/digital supplementsSubscribe now for unlimited access.View our subscription options and join our communitylast_img read more

Posted in fgxehqhv

Is this a wind-up?

first_imgStay at the forefront of thought leadership with news and analysis from award-winning journalists. Enjoy company features, CEO interviews, architectural reviews, technical project know-how and the latest innovations.Limited access to building.co.ukBreaking industry news as it happensBreaking, daily and weekly e-newsletters Get your free guest access  SIGN UP TODAY To continue enjoying Building.co.uk, sign up for free guest accessExisting subscriber? LOGIN Subscribe to Building today and you will benefit from:Unlimited access to all stories including expert analysis and comment from industry leadersOur league tables, cost models and economics dataOur online archive of over 10,000 articlesBuilding magazine digital editionsBuilding magazine print editionsPrinted/digital supplementsSubscribe now for unlimited access.View our subscription options and join our community Subscribe now for unlimited accesslast_img read more

Posted in pmtdromy

Wonders & blunders

first_imgGet your free guest access  SIGN UP TODAY Stay at the forefront of thought leadership with news and analysis from award-winning journalists. Enjoy company features, CEO interviews, architectural reviews, technical project know-how and the latest innovations.Limited access to building.co.ukBreaking industry news as it happensBreaking, daily and weekly e-newsletters Subscribe to Building today and you will benefit from:Unlimited access to all stories including expert analysis and comment from industry leadersOur league tables, cost models and economics dataOur online archive of over 10,000 articlesBuilding magazine digital editionsBuilding magazine print editionsPrinted/digital supplementsSubscribe now for unlimited access.View our subscription options and join our community Subscribe now for unlimited access To continue enjoying Building.co.uk, sign up for free guest accessExisting subscriber? LOGINlast_img read more