Lawyers Defence Group

The Institute of Legal Cashiers and Administrators to change name

admin — Fri, 03 Sep 2010 06:58:30 +0000

03 September 2010

The Institute of Legal Cashiers and Administrators (ILCA) based in Sidcup, Kent, has today announced that with effect from 12th November 2010 it will change its name to the Institute of Legal Finance and Management (ILFM)

Over the past few months the Executive Council of the ILCA have been canvassing their members for opinions on the current name. It was clear from the early responses received that the members thought that the words “Cashier” and “Administrator” no longer described their positions working within a legal accounts department.

Many felt that the position of cashier had changed over the years, from merely posting daily receipts and payments on to ledger cards, to a more demanding role.

The ILCA is proud to promote the fact that its membership now ranges from billing clerks to practice managers and from legal cashiers to LDP members.

Chief Executive, Alison Gorringe said:

“The last 32 years has seen the ILCA establishing, maintaining and contributing to developing standards of excellence in legal finance through training and the sharing of best practices. Just because the ILCA are changing their name does not mean that standards will drop. On the contrary our motto, Diligentia, Vigilantia – ‘Diligence and Vigilance’, will be ever more relevant and will remain in pride of place on our new website.”

The Executive Council and the CEO will continue to develop the Institute under its new name to achieve the ultimate accolade of becoming a regulatory body within the legal world.

SRA launches new Qualified Lawyer Transfer Scheme

admin — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 08:57:59 +0000

01 September 2010

Today sees the launch by the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s (SRA) of the new Qualified Lawyers Transfer Scheme (QLTS).

Designed to strengthen the procedures for assessing internationally qualified lawyers, and other lawyers qualified in the UK, who wish to practise as solicitors in England and Wales, it is hoped that it will open up the route to admissions to internationally qualified lawyers previously not eligible to apply.

Kaplan QLTS, part of education and training provider Kaplan, has been appointed as the sole assessment organisation to provide the QLTS assessments following a rigorous tender exercise last month.

From 1 September, candidates applying to transfer will be considered under the new QLTS rules. As part of this, international applicants will need to show they have met the English language requirement. QLTS assessments are due to start in the New Year, and will include practical exercises which will replace the previous Qualified Lawyer Transfer Regulation (QLTR) experience requirement.

The aim of the new scheme is to ensure that all applicants satisfy the ‘Day One’ outcomes, which are the standard for lawyers qualifying through the domestic route.

Antony Townsend, SRA Chief Executive said:

“The public need to have confidence in their solicitor wherever he or she may originally have qualified. This is the first fundamental change in the system of assessment of international lawyers for 20 years.

“We have seen a year-on-year increase in the number of applications which has now reached around 26% of newly authorised solicitors annually. This system will ensure that everyone has a clear standard to achieve. We have also substantially increased the diversity of the eligible jurisdictions so we are opening up access to the profession while at the same time making sure that standards are met.”

However, as Legal Futures revealed yesterday, there is still no sign of a resolution to the Law Society of Ireland’s judicial review of the new Qualified Lawyers Transfer Scheme (QLTS). This will mean that as of today Irish solicitors will no longer benefit from the automatic exemption whichh they have previously enjoyed.

ILEX apply for probate rights

admin — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 08:41:10 +0000

1 September 2010

An application to the Legal Services Board has been made by ILEX seeking approval of proposals by which ILEX may award members the right to provide probate services, which is a reserved legal activity.

The proposal would enable ILEX to authorise its members to perform the grant of probate, an activity currently restricted to solicitors, licensed conveyancers, and some accountants in limited circumstances. If successful, this would mean that ILEX members could set up their own probate practices and provide the same full range of probate services currently provided by solicitors.

Where the application becomes somewhat contentious, however, is that it also wants to permit ILEX to grant probate rights to certain other non-ILEX members who satisfy qualifying criteria – such as will-writers. ILEX have indicated that those applicants would have needed to have passed an exam at honours degree level in probate and succession, show knowledge of equity and trusts and have gained accounts and practice management qualifications.

However, the Law Society have expressed concerns about the potential loss of public protection which they regard as being of “paramount importance” about the proposals.

Further details can be found on the ILEX Professional Standards web site and in the Law Society’s Gazette.

MOJ issues updated warning on up-front fees

admin — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 11:24:21 +0000

27 August 2010

The Ministry of Justice has issued a revised statement – principally aimed at claims management companies – stating that they are aware that many businesses are taking ‘up-front’ fees without providing prospective clients with compulsory, pre-contract information as required by the Conduct of Authorised Person Rules 2007.

They state also that some businesses are not giving clients a reasonable period in which to consider the information. In particular some businesses take card details and / or payment during an initial marketing telephone call.

The MOJ is warning businesses not to take a payment or fee before this pre-contract information is provided in writing and the prospective client has had reasonable time to consider the information and that it would always consider it unreasonable to provide the information at the point of contact – whether it is a cold call or the prospective client contacted the business – and request a payment or fee.

For further details see Rule breaches – a note of warning to authorised businesses

Bar Council Practising Certificate Fees

admin — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 10:47:49 +0000

27 August 2010

The Finance & Audit Committee of the Bar Council (FAC) has issued an explanatory note setting out a detailed explanation of proposed changes to the Practising Certificate Fee for 2011/12 and for the Bar Council budget.

In what is a comprehensive proposal, the Council have proposed a number of measures, including:

aligning the practising certificate fee collection dates for the self‐employed Bar and employed Bar;
moving the Bar Council’s financial year from January to December, to April to March;
putting in place a transition arrangement to cover the January to March period (from the end of the old year to the beginning of the new);
increasing the total income of the Bar Council to meet the new levies from the Legal Services Board and Office of Legal Complaints;
getting rid of the differential practising certificate fees for the employed Bar and self employed Bar;
introducing three distinct bands of practising certificate fee – one one to four year call juniors, one for over four year call juniors, and one for Queen’s Counsel;
the retention of the low‐income waivers of £30k for the employed Bar and £40k for the self employed Bar, entitling the claimant to pay 50% of the applicable rate;

The FAC expressed the view that, since all members of the Bar needed to be regulated and represented, there was an argument for abolishing a fee banding arrangement. This had been based in the past on the assumptions that those who could afford to pay more for their practising certificate should do so and that the numbers of years of Call necessarily equated to ability to pay.

However, while the preference was a flat fee that would apply equally to all, the three‐band approach proposed means that about 80% of the profession will pay the same practising certificate fee, with the most vulnerable and those most apparently able, paying less or more respectively with a ‘catch all’ protection of a low income waiver.

Full details of the proposals can be found on the Bar Council web site under the heading Proposed changes to the Practising Certificate Fee for 2011/12

LSB consultation on appeals mechanisms around ABS

admin — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 10:07:15 +0000

Legal Services Board
Consultation closes 12 November 2010

The Legal Services Board (LSB) has published a consultation on proposals to establish the appeals mechanism on decisions of Licensing Authorities under the Alternative Business Structures (ABS) framework.

Licensing Authorities (LAs) will be at the centre of the ABS licensing system. Bodies granted the power to act as a Licensing Authority by the LSB will have a number of powers – including the ability to grant licences to bodies wishing to become an ABS, to impose a financial penalty on a licensed body, to disqualify individuals from holding certain posts within the licensed body and to revoke the body’s licence.

Provisions need to be made for a body to hear and determine appeals against these decisions. In November 2009, the LSB set out its proposals that the General Regulatory Chamber of the First-Tier Tribunal perform this function. This latest consultation develops that proposal and seeks to test the Board’s latest thinking around implementation.

Approved regulators will be able to apply to the LSB for designation as an LA from October 2010, with the first ABS becoming licensed by 6 October 2011.

New Regulations on Commercial Undertakings in Ireland

admin — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 12:49:43 +0000

23 August 2010

Following substantial debate as to the risks created by solicitors giving undertakings in commercial property transactions, and following a consultation which received 184 separate submissions, the Council of the Law Society of Ireland has decided at its meeting on 16th July, 2010, to make new regulations to prohibit the giving of such undertakings. The new regulations will come into effect on the commencement of the next professional indemnity insurance year, namely on 1st December, 2010.

The new regulations can be found in Statutory Instrument No. 366 of 2010.

Although the giving of commercial undertakings will not be legally prohibited until 1st December, 2010, in the meantime the Society’s strong advice is that solicitors in Ireland should not give commercial undertakings.

A detailed analysis of the new regulations and explanation of their practical effects will appear shortly in the Society’s Gazette. Precedent documentation, to assist solicitors to comply with the regulations, will also be supplied.

President recommends Practice Management Publication

admin — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 12:32:08 +0000

23 August 2010

The President of the Law Society of Northern Ireland is encouraging solicitor firms to access a new publication which provides practice management advice and guidance in these troubled economic times.

As part of its drive to support the profession the Practice Management and Development Committee of the Law Society is making available via it’s website the document which is entitled “From recession to upturn: Financial management and strategy for law firms”.

The document has been developed especially for solicitors firms and it makes the expertise, experience and advice of experts from the financial, management consultancy and accountancy worlds relevant to our own profession.

The document can be accessed by members of the Law Society of Northern Ireland at www.lawsoc-ni.org/fs/doc/members/From_recession_to_upturn_%5B1%5D.pdf.

Alternatively, for those who are not members, a similar document can be accessed by everyone on the Law Society of Scotland’s web site at www.lawscot.org.uk/Members_Information/rep_and_support/professional_support/recession_to_upturn.aspx

Scottish Law Society to research bullying in the profession

admin — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 12:13:27 +0000

23 August 2010

The Law Society of Scotland has appointed Equality Works to carry out research into bullying and harassment in the legal profession.

The researchers are now looking for people from across the profession – from trainees to partners and paralegals and support staff to share their experiences and also suggestions on improving the workplace and good practice in this area.

They want to hear from people who have experienced or witnessed bullying or harassment, those who provide support for victims and also those who have been accused of bullying or harassment.

Neil Stevenson, Director of Representation and Support at the Society, said:

“This is an important piece of research for the Society. While we have probably all heard about incidences of bullying, we do not know how widespread or not it may be or if there are particular individuals or groups which are most affected.

“The initial findings of the research are expected to be published around November, none of which will be attributable to individuals. We also intend to put together guidance on best practice based on the outcomes and develop a strategy to provide support to anyone who is affected and work with firms to promote dignity at work.”

Julius Erolin, Managing Consultant from Equality Works said:

“Bullying and harassment is a serious issue in the workplace and can cause pain and misery for those who are victims, and adds significant costs to businesses. Identifying whether there is a problem is the only way to ensure that it can be dealt with appropriately.

“Even if there is not a significant problem within the legal profession, there are bound to be isolated cases identified or some workplaces where working practice could be improved.

Julius added:

“Anyone who takes part in this research can be assured of confidentiality and discretion.”

Further information can be found on the Law Society of Scotland’s web site.

Do lawyers care about their regulators?

admin — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 12:04:33 +0000

An article last month in Scottish legal magazine The Firm entitled “Vast majority of solicitors totally unaware of Law Society constitution consultation” is something of an indictment on the extent to which lawyers engage with their regulatory body. It begs the question of whether the average lawyer actually cares about those who regulate – until, of course, it is too late and they find themselves on the wrong end of a disciplinary sanction.

The article states that the Scottish Law Agents Society has reported that the “vast majority” of solicitors in Scotland were not aware that a consultation inviting members to comment on the proposed draft constitution was underway.

This is not, I would suggest, a problem that is unique to Scotland.

In December 2009 the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) issued a consultation on conflict and confidentiality. It ran until February. Some 28 responses were received, 11 of which came from City firms. A consultation on the assigned risks pool launched the month before fared slightly better receiving 130 responses – but even that was less than the number of firms in the pool at that time and only 32 were from sole practitioners, the very section of the profession most likely to be affected by any change in the rules.

Not that solicitors are the only lawyers reluctant to interact. The licensed conveyancers do little better. The Council for Licensed Conveyancers’ consultation on a proposed increase in the maximum level of compensation awarded for inadequate professional service produced a grand total of 16 responses (nine for and seven against, if you’re wondering).

Why the reluctance?

So why is it that, given the fact that many of these consultations lead to changes to the way in which professionals are regulated and are able to conduct their businesses, and that most professionals regularly complain about the way they are regulated, more do not respond?

There are I would suspect a number of reasons including:

Apathy – it is always easier not to bother and anyway, “somebody else will respond and they are bound to think like me”;
Ignorance of the consultation – consultations tend not to be exactly high profile, most practitioners would be hard pushed to find a consultation on the website of most of the regulators, and the regulators don’t really do a great deal to promote those consultations;
Lack of time – most lawyers don’t have the time to read the consultations, let alone formulate a response. This especially applies to those who are in employed practice and who probably don’t have a timesheet code for recording a response to a consultation;
Ignorance of the issues involved – many solicitors are unaware of the practical issues affecting their profession and of how decisions made by their regulator can affect them;
Length and complexity – many of those who work in the regulators are fairly focused on their particular area of specialism and delight in the detail and the intellectual cut and thrust of a well-worded paper. The problem is that this insistence upon accuracy often produces some long, complex and very wordy papers containing arguments which are not easy to follow;
Irrelevance – to the average busy professional, especially those who are not themselves involved in law firm management or who are not interested in that area of specialism, many of the consultations are not particularly relevant to them or their work.

So do regulators need to engage more with those whom they regulate or should they simply assume that no news is good news?

The danger of not engaging with the regulated is that regulators run the risk of becoming remote from those whom they regulate and regulation becomes inappropriate, unnecessary, heavy-handed or impractical. To an extent we already see examples of regulations which restrict the freedom of those in practice to a degree which can render them uncompetitive.

Is there a solution?

The fault, however, if fault there is, lies on both sides.

The professions must become more attuned to the wider needs of practice and must engage more not only with their regulators but with the other organisations that impinge upon their working day. A law firm is a business and must strive to recognise that it is a business. Businesses have to be cognisant of all of the factors which impinge upon them and must respond to those factors. A business which thinks it can just continue to do that which it has always done, without paying any attention to the market place in which it operates, is soon not going to satisfy the needs of that market place.

That is where many law firms are at present. As Professor Stephen Mayson said in his paper If ABSs are the answer, what is the question? – “if you don’t think you’re in business, it doesn’t really matter because you’ll soon be out of business anyway”.

At the same time, however, the regulators have to start to make their consultations more consumer-friendly and have to start to become more accountable to those whom they regulate as well as to the public in whose interests regulation is undertaken. This is something which is particularly apparent in the choice of topics upon which regulators consult and the impact that some of the non-consulted decisions can have upon those in practice.

Two examples of unconsulted changes have occurred recently:

The change to minimum terms of business for professional indemnity insurers, where the SRA agreed some major changes to the terms without any consultation with the profession; and
Changes to procedures by the SRA in the way in which caseworkers are handling investigations.

The regulators may think these are small and inconsequential changes. To them, possibly they are so, because all they are doing is making their lives easier or rationalising procedures and processes. To a profession struggling to keep up-to-date with the pace at which regulation is changing, it is a far more important issue.

Indeed, one of the criticisms regularly levelled against the SRA is that those who are subject to regulation often do not know and cannot find details of how that regulation is carried out or what the implications of default will be.

It would be worth all regulators bearing in mind that regulated businesses are, as the term implies, businesses. They need to be able to operate in a business environment. They need to be able to compete effectively. They need not to be tied down by either the burden of unnecessary or overly-zealous regulation. They need not to be kept in the dark about that which is required of them and that which is to be imposed upon them.

So, the conclusion is that there has to be effort made on both sides if regulated firms are to continue to be regulated in a proportionate manner.

On the one hand, there is a danger that if regulators become too Draconian then all that they will achieve is to create a small and uncompetitive regulated sector.

On the other hand, however, lawyers have to be aware of the fact that they are regulated businesses, operate as businesses that are no longer protected and cosseted by restrictive trade practices, take an interest in the regulations that are imposed and try to ensure an equitable regulatory outcome.

Above all else, they have to start to care about their regulators.

This blog item first appeared on the Legal Futures web site