Professional Body and Referendums
The Law Society for Scotland is giving the legal profession a referendum on the ability to allow the legal profession to be split up:
"The move comes amid increasing resentment among the legal profession about the Law Society's handling of the move towards alternative business structures (ABS) that will permit non-lawyers to own law firms. ...
They insist the Society's "dual" function, which sees it also act as the statutory regulator for lawyers, cannot continue and the roles should be split, as they have been in England and Wales."
The Scotsman 11/03/10 article by Christopher Mackie entitled "Referendum gives solicitors chance to split up the Law Society (Click Here)
There appears to be an issue between "Regulation" and "Independence as a Profession".
I cannot see that it really matters. Some might say there has been an anarchist called "MODERN" at work within the judiciary and legal profession, well there certainly has been a modernisation policy which has the appearance of corruption rather than independence from my perspective anyway. But who are the policy makers?
This month's policy was called "Tesco law" whereby supermarkets can run legal services within their umbrella of anti-high street shopping. Some folks see this is as a step away from "professionalism", but I would disagree. Many law firms especially the top tier are more akin to call centres - the bulk of the work is pro forma or standard form agreements played out as contractual matrix and you can have corporate contracts with over 50 different documents in them with attorney's and lawyers flying across the water in what can appear to be a sweat shop of legalese. Some of those boardroom tables are huge with a toaster rack to file the documents as they complete. Yes, I have been involved in this style of law in the American law firms in London - an experience in itself - at least the American law firms have nice offices and their niceness extends to the toilets and beyond reception area! Lord Woolf did request that law offices upgrade as part of the Woolf Reforms as well as encouraging plain English in text - albeit I did like the latin myself.
But back to call centres - many lawyers are really only filling in the blanks, they cannot justify the salaries that they get and a lot of the work is downgraded to paralegals per se.
Also the City of Westminister provides just the same service as the City of London, so how can they justify the fee differential to clients. Moreover, legal secretaries educated or not cross the boundary with little difficulty - so why is it lawyers have such an issue viz-a-viz the Top 10 or Top 20 London law firms! Bearing in mind law graduates study the same law degree in Oxford as they do in Birbeck College, London, sit the same exams, use the same books with same or similar contents and index pages: I cannot see how universities can justify the "Russell Group" either - over to you Harriet Harman a "LEGAL EQUALITY ISSUE" - you have been there, done that too. (Maybe the issue for Equality is far more simpler - a child has the right to 6 months with its mother, and thereafter 6 months with its father in companies above a certain size in relation to fathers, ie remove maternity/paternity out of employment rights and refocus it on the child right in law - there then would be greater equality in the boardroom ON MERIT of course).
Perhaps "MODERN" is nearly over, there cannot be too much that has not been "changed" and hopefully "improved" left to do in the change management regime we have seen since 1997.
Gordon Brown PM recently had head lines that he is the right person to fix things or something like that - well, that's ok so long as you impliedly accept that something went terribly wrong during office tenure under New Labour or was impliedly wrong before the fact - in which case, spell it out succinctly. WHAT IS OR WENT WRONG and WHAT are you going to FIX? WHO IS/ARE RESPONSIBLE - I know the inherent problem is the Ministry of Justice and Lord Chancellor's position which makes things CONSTITUTIONAL which requires the public's permission or consent to some things that have been taken for granted under MODERNISATION of TRADITIONAL methodologies and concepts: or at least political debate in the Commons and Lords which is above board. ADR was debated but the shallowness was outstanding - my material was not debated at all but was put forward for debate in the Scottish Parliament and European Parliament at least.
Tesco law is about creating "alternative" business structures ... have we done with "alternative" because it is that which is the source of the problems : modern incorporates "alternative" and "contemporary" and "privatisation".
Can we now do "evaluation" and "monitoring" policy to repair any damage that has occurred. We did not appear to have a "stop" button or "stop and think and improve" button. Perhaps FP8 can be "flip a coin policy a 50:50 chance over random and pot luck". Bear in mind that with a change management regime, there is always the danger that you can throw the baby out with the bath water ... ie, some things are already inherently good, and therefore do not require to be changed or improved.
However, having worked in the legal profession for 20 years from the bottom to top echelons and seen lawyers believe they are actually lawyers when filling in blanks in pro forma standard agreements which they have ripped off from the otherside of another transaction, and who probably could not draft a legal document from scratch these days if they tried, and would be defeated by a travelling draft, the watering down of the legal profession to supermarkets could go somewhat further to call centres - much of law these days is reiteration work, not challenging. Also having worked for Citizen Advice Bureau as a generalist adviser it would be a shock to lawyers to know that volunteers solve societies problems in 45 minutes and only minimal casework is sent to lawyers who if using legal aid take 6 weeks to process a legal aid form! With the ability to create databases, use scanners and email and de-legalise lawyers ... there is still some improvement necessary including court cases by email or skype ... (I am still waiting 6 years hence for the procedures to occur to my 2 lever arch court action and/or settlement). I don't reckon that the computerisation of legal matters will detract in any way from the number of disputes that occur in the disciplined areas of knowledge that currently exist via a law degree : law of obligations/contract, tort, crime, property, equity & trusts, legal systems and legal methods, constitutional, EC law, environment, corporate, employment law and of course JURISPRUDENCE - the science and theory of human law and other areas possibly human rights now and I suppose MODERN the anarchy student v TRADITIONAL student which probably is now a serious topic of Jurisprudence or at least I hope it is! I did read my Post-Modern Jurisprudence via my Constitutional law lecturer Costas Douzinas - ahead of his time perhaps.
There is a need to bring society to the 21st Century which can happen naturally or artificially.
My issue was that we also appeared to socially include a n azi concept, bearing in mind that the Japanese aligned themselves to the N azi's in WWII. However, it bizarrely came in via the Jews in America in the 50's/60's (at least that is my intelligence issue via Shapiro which requires some debate and explanation, including from America, especially as Mr Clinton assisted ADR to enter global systems. Scotland is also in the frame as the only N azi who entered Scotland was H e s s, speculation requires me to consider a link without a conspiracy theory here for the time being anyway - my research exists for a reason which has been revealed over time and is targeted at Europe via the UK and succeeded so long as I was covered up) - but then there were two holocausts as an outcome of WWII. My boss aligned with Shapiro and FICA was set up in Germany which I believe is an arbitration club or something like that - privatisation of the application of the rule of law! For some unknown reason many members of the partnership boycotted the Summer Ball when the firm aligned with a German Equity Department in or about 1997. Speaks volumes to me now. If there is such a thing as the cold war, then I reckon Japan won due to Jewish treachery. ADR is a Japanese concept which is used culturally to save loss of face. The Jews modified it to quicker and cheaper than litigation - the public application of the rule of law. ADR bypasses both common law and statute when contained within the same and creates a completely hidden and gagged society. Is that something that we wanted, was debated, needs evaluation and monitoring? Even freedom of the press would be hard pushed to circumvent a gagging order in an ADR agreement - but the parties are always free to break their contract as they see fit, which is what they would have done in the first place but be rewarded with a new contract rather than face a judge and remedies in law via public or private application of the rule of law. Where there is a point concerning ADR in relation to litigation and arbitration, the 21st Century could remedy very quickly if the judiciary wanted to - modernisation could usefully retire some of the older judiciary to enable the more computer savvy barristers to get a post. Only a judge can delay a court case. Only a judge can do procedural nonsense. Only a judge can abuse your human rights. Judges can be made accountable especially in criminal law - obstruction of the course of justice, and perversion of the course of justice. Judges can operate in conspiracy with either party. Judges do say one thing and do the other eg don't steal a march appears to be do whatsoever you like, but what do you do when they get caught and requests for contempt of court are made - make out that you have not complied with procedure - computerisation would mean that this nonsense would have to go where documents are uploaded to the court and everyone can see them - the courts are "public", the full extent of the word is significant especially where there is an ability to do judicial corruption. Whether lessons are learned is another thing.
"The move comes amid increasing resentment among the legal profession about the Law Society's handling of the move towards alternative business structures (ABS) that will permit non-lawyers to own law firms. ...
They insist the Society's "dual" function, which sees it also act as the statutory regulator for lawyers, cannot continue and the roles should be split, as they have been in England and Wales."
The Scotsman 11/03/10 article by Christopher Mackie entitled "Referendum gives solicitors chance to split up the Law Society (Click Here)
There appears to be an issue between "Regulation" and "Independence as a Profession".
I cannot see that it really matters. Some might say there has been an anarchist called "MODERN" at work within the judiciary and legal profession, well there certainly has been a modernisation policy which has the appearance of corruption rather than independence from my perspective anyway. But who are the policy makers?
This month's policy was called "Tesco law" whereby supermarkets can run legal services within their umbrella of anti-high street shopping. Some folks see this is as a step away from "professionalism", but I would disagree. Many law firms especially the top tier are more akin to call centres - the bulk of the work is pro forma or standard form agreements played out as contractual matrix and you can have corporate contracts with over 50 different documents in them with attorney's and lawyers flying across the water in what can appear to be a sweat shop of legalese. Some of those boardroom tables are huge with a toaster rack to file the documents as they complete. Yes, I have been involved in this style of law in the American law firms in London - an experience in itself - at least the American law firms have nice offices and their niceness extends to the toilets and beyond reception area! Lord Woolf did request that law offices upgrade as part of the Woolf Reforms as well as encouraging plain English in text - albeit I did like the latin myself.
But back to call centres - many lawyers are really only filling in the blanks, they cannot justify the salaries that they get and a lot of the work is downgraded to paralegals per se.
Also the City of Westminister provides just the same service as the City of London, so how can they justify the fee differential to clients. Moreover, legal secretaries educated or not cross the boundary with little difficulty - so why is it lawyers have such an issue viz-a-viz the Top 10 or Top 20 London law firms! Bearing in mind law graduates study the same law degree in Oxford as they do in Birbeck College, London, sit the same exams, use the same books with same or similar contents and index pages: I cannot see how universities can justify the "Russell Group" either - over to you Harriet Harman a "LEGAL EQUALITY ISSUE" - you have been there, done that too. (Maybe the issue for Equality is far more simpler - a child has the right to 6 months with its mother, and thereafter 6 months with its father in companies above a certain size in relation to fathers, ie remove maternity/paternity out of employment rights and refocus it on the child right in law - there then would be greater equality in the boardroom ON MERIT of course).
Perhaps "MODERN" is nearly over, there cannot be too much that has not been "changed" and hopefully "improved" left to do in the change management regime we have seen since 1997.
Gordon Brown PM recently had head lines that he is the right person to fix things or something like that - well, that's ok so long as you impliedly accept that something went terribly wrong during office tenure under New Labour or was impliedly wrong before the fact - in which case, spell it out succinctly. WHAT IS OR WENT WRONG and WHAT are you going to FIX? WHO IS/ARE RESPONSIBLE - I know the inherent problem is the Ministry of Justice and Lord Chancellor's position which makes things CONSTITUTIONAL which requires the public's permission or consent to some things that have been taken for granted under MODERNISATION of TRADITIONAL methodologies and concepts: or at least political debate in the Commons and Lords which is above board. ADR was debated but the shallowness was outstanding - my material was not debated at all but was put forward for debate in the Scottish Parliament and European Parliament at least.
Tesco law is about creating "alternative" business structures ... have we done with "alternative" because it is that which is the source of the problems : modern incorporates "alternative" and "contemporary" and "privatisation".
Can we now do "evaluation" and "monitoring" policy to repair any damage that has occurred. We did not appear to have a "stop" button or "stop and think and improve" button. Perhaps FP8 can be "flip a coin policy a 50:50 chance over random and pot luck". Bear in mind that with a change management regime, there is always the danger that you can throw the baby out with the bath water ... ie, some things are already inherently good, and therefore do not require to be changed or improved.
However, having worked in the legal profession for 20 years from the bottom to top echelons and seen lawyers believe they are actually lawyers when filling in blanks in pro forma standard agreements which they have ripped off from the otherside of another transaction, and who probably could not draft a legal document from scratch these days if they tried, and would be defeated by a travelling draft, the watering down of the legal profession to supermarkets could go somewhat further to call centres - much of law these days is reiteration work, not challenging. Also having worked for Citizen Advice Bureau as a generalist adviser it would be a shock to lawyers to know that volunteers solve societies problems in 45 minutes and only minimal casework is sent to lawyers who if using legal aid take 6 weeks to process a legal aid form! With the ability to create databases, use scanners and email and de-legalise lawyers ... there is still some improvement necessary including court cases by email or skype ... (I am still waiting 6 years hence for the procedures to occur to my 2 lever arch court action and/or settlement). I don't reckon that the computerisation of legal matters will detract in any way from the number of disputes that occur in the disciplined areas of knowledge that currently exist via a law degree : law of obligations/contract, tort, crime, property, equity & trusts, legal systems and legal methods, constitutional, EC law, environment, corporate, employment law and of course JURISPRUDENCE - the science and theory of human law and other areas possibly human rights now and I suppose MODERN the anarchy student v TRADITIONAL student which probably is now a serious topic of Jurisprudence or at least I hope it is! I did read my Post-Modern Jurisprudence via my Constitutional law lecturer Costas Douzinas - ahead of his time perhaps.
There is a need to bring society to the 21st Century which can happen naturally or artificially.
My issue was that we also appeared to socially include a n azi concept, bearing in mind that the Japanese aligned themselves to the N azi's in WWII. However, it bizarrely came in via the Jews in America in the 50's/60's (at least that is my intelligence issue via Shapiro which requires some debate and explanation, including from America, especially as Mr Clinton assisted ADR to enter global systems. Scotland is also in the frame as the only N azi who entered Scotland was H e s s, speculation requires me to consider a link without a conspiracy theory here for the time being anyway - my research exists for a reason which has been revealed over time and is targeted at Europe via the UK and succeeded so long as I was covered up) - but then there were two holocausts as an outcome of WWII. My boss aligned with Shapiro and FICA was set up in Germany which I believe is an arbitration club or something like that - privatisation of the application of the rule of law! For some unknown reason many members of the partnership boycotted the Summer Ball when the firm aligned with a German Equity Department in or about 1997. Speaks volumes to me now. If there is such a thing as the cold war, then I reckon Japan won due to Jewish treachery. ADR is a Japanese concept which is used culturally to save loss of face. The Jews modified it to quicker and cheaper than litigation - the public application of the rule of law. ADR bypasses both common law and statute when contained within the same and creates a completely hidden and gagged society. Is that something that we wanted, was debated, needs evaluation and monitoring? Even freedom of the press would be hard pushed to circumvent a gagging order in an ADR agreement - but the parties are always free to break their contract as they see fit, which is what they would have done in the first place but be rewarded with a new contract rather than face a judge and remedies in law via public or private application of the rule of law. Where there is a point concerning ADR in relation to litigation and arbitration, the 21st Century could remedy very quickly if the judiciary wanted to - modernisation could usefully retire some of the older judiciary to enable the more computer savvy barristers to get a post. Only a judge can delay a court case. Only a judge can do procedural nonsense. Only a judge can abuse your human rights. Judges can be made accountable especially in criminal law - obstruction of the course of justice, and perversion of the course of justice. Judges can operate in conspiracy with either party. Judges do say one thing and do the other eg don't steal a march appears to be do whatsoever you like, but what do you do when they get caught and requests for contempt of court are made - make out that you have not complied with procedure - computerisation would mean that this nonsense would have to go where documents are uploaded to the court and everyone can see them - the courts are "public", the full extent of the word is significant especially where there is an ability to do judicial corruption. Whether lessons are learned is another thing.
posted by Lesley McDade at 1:07 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home