Bill of Middlesex Summer 2016

Summer 2016

The BILL of

Middlesex Official journal of the Middlesex Law Society

SHOULD WE STAY OR SHOULD WE GO? Guest Speaker at the McBrides Budget Presentation

Rt Hon James Brokenshire MP (See Page 17)

Inside this issue: › › › ›

Conveyancing Focus Probate Risk and Compliance Cyber Security

PUBLISHER Benham Publishing Limited 3tc House, 16 Crosby Road North, Crosby, Liverpool L22 0NY Tel: 0151 236 4141 Facsimile: 0151 236 0440 email: admin@benhampublishing.com web: www.benhampublishing.com

Contents 5

17

ADVERTISING AND FEATURES EDITOR Anna Woodhams

DESIGN AND PRODUCTION MANAGER John Barry

ACCOUNTS DIRECTOR Joanne Casey

MEDIA No. 1455

21

9

EDITOR Sundeep Bhatia

PUBLISHED May 2016 - © Bill of Middlesex Benham Publishing

LEGAL NOTICE © Benham Publishing.

None of the editorial or photographs may be reproduced without prior written permission from the publishers. Benham Publishing would like to point out that all editorial comment and articles are the responsibility of the originators and may or may not reflect the opinions of Benham Publishing. No responsibility can be accepted for any inaccuracies that may occur, correct at time of going to press.

10

26

Benham Publishing cannot be held responsible for any inaccuracies in web or email links supplied to us.

DISCLAIMER The Middlesex Law Society welcomes all persons eligible for membership regardless of Sex, Race, Religion, Age or Sexual Orientation.

All views expressed in this publication are the views of the individual writers and not the society unless specifically stated to be otherwise. All statements as to the law are for discussion between member and should not be relied upon as an accurate statement of the law, are of a general nature and do not constitute advice in any particular case or circumstance.

29

Members of the public should not seek to rely on anything published in this magazine in court but seek qualified Legal Advice.

COVER INFORMATION The cover image: Rt. Hon, James Brokenshire MP, courtesy of McBrides

Copy Deadlines Autumn Winter Spring Summer

1st August 2016 24th October 2016 17th February 2017 2nd May 2017

Anyone wishing to advertise or submit editorial for publication in the Bill of Middlesex please contact Anna Woodhams, before copy deadline.

Email: anna@benhampublishing.com Tel: 0151 236 4141

15 5

INTRODUCTION

21 PROBATE

6

COUNCIL MEMBERS

24 PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

9

EDITOR’S COLUMN

25 RISK AND COMPLIANCE

10 NEWS

28 CYBER SECURITY

15 MIDDLESEX LAW SOCIETY ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING

30 LEGACIES 31 CONVEYANCING

17 ACCOUNTANCY The Bill of Middlesex 3

officers COMMITTEE MEMBERS

PAST PRESIDENTS R Garrod, J A S Nicholls, R C Politeyan, J Aylett,

Past President

OFFICERS FOR 2016 President:

Gurmeet Kharaud

D Grove, L A Darke, C Beety, Mrs L E Vickers, H Hodge,

Fort & Co. Solicitors

E G B Taylor, A A M Wheatley, A H Kurtz, M J S Doran,

Saunders House, 52-53 The Mall, Ealing W5 3TA

H B Matthissen, G Parkinson, HHJ R D Connor,

(020 170 8433) (DX 5119 Ealing)

A Bates, J J Copeman-Hill, D B Kennett-Brown,

e-mail: gk@fortsolicitors.com

ARIYA SRIHARAN Sriharans Solicitors 223 The Broadway, Southall UB1 1ND (020 8843 9974) (DX 119583 Southall 3) e-mail: info@sriharanssolicitors.co.uk

Sundeep Bhatia

W J C Berry, AS Atchison, L M Oliver,

Beaumonde Law Practice

S W Booth, D D P Debidin, R E J Hansom, E H Lock,

Audit House, 260 Field End Road, Eastcote Middlesex HA4 9LT (020 8868 1614)

MAURICE GUYER

e-mail: sundeep.bhatia@beaumonde-law.co.uk

e-mail: mguyer@vickers-solicitors.co.uk

Honorary Treasurer: ELISABETH VAN DER WEIT

A Darlington, S Chhokar, Ms M Crowley, Professor M Davies,S Hobbs, Mrs R Sriharan, Mrs S Scott Hunt, D Webb,

Professor Malcolm Davies Head of Ealing Law School

PARLIAMENTARY LIAISON

University of West London

Michael Garson

St. Marys Road, Ealing W 5RF (020 8231 2226) e-mail: malcolm.davies@tvu.ac.uk

Hameed & Co. 4 Grand Parade, Forty Avenue, Wembley Park, HA9 9JS

Maria Fernandes of Fernandes Vaz Solicitors

(020 8904 4900)

87 Wembley Hill Road, Wembley Middx HA9 8BU

e-mail: hameed@hameed.plus.com

Mrs A Taylor, Mrs N Desor, Ms M Hutchinson, M Guyer, R S Drepaul, A Sriharan, Ms M Fernandes

G Kharaud

Vickers & Co. 183 Uxbridge Road, Ealing W13 9AA

S B Hammett, Miss F A Shakespear, HHJ P E Copley, A M Harvey, H R Hodge, G R Stephenson, B S Regler,

Honorary Secretary

(020 8579 2559) (DX 5104 Ealing)

K Goodacre, H J B Cockshutt, W Gillham, L Lane Heardman,

(020 873 30123)

SOCIAL PROGRAMME 2016 - 2017 Annual Dinner Dance on 11 November 2016 Past Presidents Dinner - TBA Regional Lunches TBA Pub Meetings TBA

e-mail: info@fernandesvaz.com Honorary Social Secretary: DAVE. P. DEBIDIN Debidins Solicitors 47 Mount Park Road, Ealing W5 2RS (020 8567 1381/6343) (DX 5105 Ealing) e-mail: info@debidins.co.uk

Stephen Hodgson Lecturer in Law, Ealing Law School

St Marys Road, Ealing W5 5RF

e-mail: stephen.hodgson@uwl.ac.uk

EDUCATION & TRAINING PROGRAMME 2016 – 2017

Maralyn Hutchinson of Kagan Moss

Training Sessions TBA See Bill of Middlesex magazine for ongoing events

SUSAN SCOTT-HUNT Principal Lecturer in Law, Middlesex University The Burroughs, Hendon NW4 4BT

Contact Administrator or Hon. Social Secretary for details or visit our website

University of West London

(020 8231 2406) Honorary Membership Secretary:

See Bill of Middlesex magazine for ongoing events

22 The Causeway, Teddington, Middx TW11 0HF

(020 8411 6019) e-mail: s.scott-hunt@mdx.ac.uk

(020 8977 6633) (DX 35250 Teddington) e-mail: maralyn.hutchinson@kaganmoss.co.uk

Council Members for the Middlesex Area: Central & South Middlesex

Zulfiqar Ali Meerza of Serious Fraud Office (SFO)

Michael Garson

2 – 4 Cockspur Street, London SW17 5BS

Kagan Moss

(020 7084 4890)

22 The Causeway, Teddington TW11 0HF

e-mail: zulfiqar.meerza@sfo.gsi.gov.uk

COMMITTEE MEETINGS 2016 Mon 20th June Mon 19th September Mon 21st November 2017 Mon 16th January

Mon 18th July Mon 17th October

Mon 20th February

(020 8977 6633) (DX 35250 Teddington) e-mail: michael.garson@kaganmoss.co.uk

North Middlesex Michael Singleton Singletons Austin Ryder

Miles Sriharan of Sriharans Solicitors 223 The Broadway, Southall UB1 1ND

AGM Wednesday 15th March 2017

(020 8843 9974) (DX 119583 Southall 3) e-mail: miles.sriharan@sriharanssolicitors.co.uk

2 Crossfield Chambers, Gladbeck Way, Enfield EN2 7HT (020 8367 0387) (DX 90604 Enfield)

Renuka Sriharan of Sriharans

e-mail: michael.singleton@singletonsuk.com

223 The Broadway, Southall UB1 1ND (020 8843 9974) (DX 119583 Southall 3)

Mark Hudson

e-mail: info@sriharanssolicitors.co.uk

Regional Manager, The Law Society Greater London Regional Office, The Law Society,

Alberta Tevie of Sriharans Solicitors

113 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1PL

223 The Broadway, Southall UB1 1ND

(020 7316 5554) (DX 56 London/Chancery Lane)

(020 8843 9974) (DX 119583 Southall 3)

e-mail: mark.hudson@lawsociety.org.uk

e-mail: albertaot@gmail.com

4 The Bill of Middlesex

www.middlesex-law.co.uk

introduction

President’s Review “We are proud of the profession and we want you to be proud of your Local Law Society”.

T

his is not a quotation of mine.

This is an appeal by the President of The Law Society, Mr Jonathan Smithers. I attended the Presidents and Secretaries Conference 2016 held at The Law Society at Chancery Lane on the 6th and 7th May 2016. The President in his opening address, made a passionate speech about the profession and about the importance of the Local Law Societies. He explained in detail the role of the Society and the importance of the Local Law Societies and their functions. I believed and absorbed every word he said in his speech.

Since my teenage years, I have believed that the noblest profession in the world is the Legal Profession. That belief inspired me to enter the Legal Profession. Thereafter, the nucleus of the Rule of Law happened to be born in Britain. That is why we celebrated 800 years of Magna Carta last year. I am blessed to be in the Legal Profession in the UK. I feel that everyone who is in the Legal Profession, whether they have come in to it willingly or unwillingly should be proud of the profession. If you are proud of your profession, you will be passionate about it and you will prosper.

There is no dispute of the fact that without Rule of Law, no country will survive or succeed. The absence of Rule of Law brings anarchism and subsequent down fall. The guardians of Rule of Law are the Lawyers.

Therefore we have every reason to be proud of our profession.

The Middlesex Law Society is your Law Society and has a unique position in the whole of England and Wales. We have the highest number of sole practitioners in our constituency. We have the highest ethnic minority practitioners in our constituency.

These facts make the Middlesex Law Society heavyweight amongst all the Local Law Societies in England and Wales. Sadly we are not making the best out of our Local Law Society. In the 80’s and 90’s our Law Society enjoyed a time of glory. We have had dinner dances at the Savoy Hotel, Landmark Hotel, Langham Hotel and Hampton Court Palace. We had many other functions such as dinners with the Police and Crown Prosecution Service and dinners with Financial Consultants and Estate Agents. The interest of the Society has gone down in the past years due to the economic changes and financial climate in the country at large.

When we approached the Senior Partners of big Firms within our area, they asked “what is in it for them?” I will say that there are enormous benefits, advantages, referrals and social enjoyments if we are part of the Middlesex Law Society. We are in the Local Law Society, with likeminded men and woman who are on the same wavelength.

We understand the difficulties and prosperities. We stand by each other in ups and downs. Our profession is stressful because we takeover and bear the stress of the public.

That is what we are paid for. Therefore we have to de-stress ourselves. The best ways of destressing is by way of exchanging views, gathering information and socialising.

Have your say in The Law Society at Chancery Lane. You can achieve this by being part of the Middlesex Law Society. I appeal to you all to take part in the Middlesex Law Society. You can contact our Officer Bearers, Committee Members, Administrator and our Council Members.

They will facilitate your information and involvement.

When I joined the Local Law Society in 1987, which was then known as Central and South Middlesex Law Society, Mr Andrew Harvey of Prince Evans was the President. The Vice President was Mr Ray Stevenson. I received a warm welcome when I joined the Committee. In the first annual dinner dance I attended, I was on Mr Stevenson’s table. I treasure the memories of those wonderful years. Our Constituency Territory and Membership expanded. We became Middlesex Law Society. Although we expanded, the activities and interest in the Middlesex Law Society had reduced. That is the reason I have accepted the responsibility of being the President at the AGM, which was held in April of this year. It is our moral obligation to bring this Society to the old glory and to hand it over to the next generation who are coming into the profession with a lot of expectations and aspirations. We are blessed to have three good Universities in our Constituency - Brunel University, University of West London and Middlesex University. They are producing Lawyers for the next generation. The new generations’ first step to feel the flavour of the Legal Profession should be to be part of the Middlesex Law Society. I pledge that I will do my best to achieve this goal for the sake of the next generation of lawyers.

ARIYA SRIHARAN President, Middlesex Law Society e-mail: sri@sriharanssolicitors.co.uk

The Bill of Middlesex 5

council members

Council Member’s Report Once the referendum has been and gone the flow of government consultations can resume - how pleasant the respite has been!

The MOJ is expected to bring forward its consultation on making legal service regulators independent from their representative bodies. Research supporting Treasury proposals to fully separate legal regulators from professional bodies, shows that 82 percent of adults in England and Wales think that solicitors should be regulated separately.

The SRA , though functionally independent within the Law Society, as guaranteed by Legal Services Board (LSB) governance rules, has been lobbying for this .To quote the current Chair of the SRA, Enid Rowlands in Legal Futures in December, ‘making us truly independent would bolster public confidence .” The current Chief Executive, Paul Philip is quoted in the same article as saying that “we are a public interest regulator. It is difficult to see how an organisation that represents the profession can uphold public confidence.”

However, the annual practising certificate fee levied each year supports a variety of permitted purposes under section 51 of the Legal Services Act. This includes regulatory purposes administered by the SRA and nonregulatory permitted purposes operated by the Law Society.

The activities within section 51 cover: a) the regulation, accreditation, education and training of applicable persons and those either holding themselves out as or wishing to become such persons, including: (i) the maintaining and raising of their professional standards; and (ii) the giving of practical support, and advice about practice management, in relation to practices carried on by such persons;

The case for physical separation is also pressed by the LSB seeking a regulatory framework ‘more efficient and effective in seeking to promote strong and fair competition’ to quote Sir Michael Pitt, the current chair of the Legal Services Board. This agenda is a political one which embraces economic theory and which ignores the principle cornerstone of a legal profession independent from government influence.

(b) the payment of a levy imposed on the Approved Regulator under section 173 of the Act and/or the payment of a financial penalty imposed on the Approved Regulator under section 37 of the Act;

In June the Competition and Markets Authority is due to deliver its interim report, on a Market Study which has been in progress since January, in order to establish whether ‘current customers can drive effective competition with informed purchasing decisions, whether they are adequately protected from harm and have satisfactory redress if services go wrong and how the regulatory framework impacts on competition for the supply of legal services.’

(d) the provision by applicable persons, and those either holding themselves out as or wishing to become such persons, of legal services including reserved legal services, immigration advice or immigration services to the public free of charge;

Specific case studies into legal services relating to Wills, Employment and Immigration also form part of the work that comes out of the Treasury announcement in November 2015 to consult on ‘making legal services regulators independent from representative bodies and to create a fairer and more balanced regulatory regime for England and Wales that encourages competition making it easier for businesses such as supermarkets and estate agents among others to offer legal services like conveyancing, probate and litigation.’

(f) the promotion of relations between the Approved Regulator and relevant national or international bodies, governments or the legal professions of other jurisdictions;

Any re-design of regulation for legal services,either through a single regulator or through the current array of multiple regulators, will need to secure satisfactory funding by the profession and it is therefore no surprise that the Legal Services Board has been conducting research into the relative costs of regulation. In May, it published findings across seven of the legal service providers after running an online survey Overall it found a lack of satisfaction with the value for money of regulation accompanied by a lack of awareness as to what is paid for by practising certificate fees.

The lack of awareness arises to some extent because the cost of regulation, in the minds of practitioners, extends into different areas which do not necessarily align perfectly with the defined role of the legal service regulators. Most practitioners regard the cost of regulation as covering professional indemnity insurance, the annual practising certificate renewal, continuing professional development, compliance requirements, and enforcement mechanisms including the provision of information and money-laundering regulation.

(c) the participation by the Approved Regulator in law reform and the legislative process;

(e) the promotion of the protection by law of human rights and fundamental freedoms;

(g) increasing public understanding of the citizen’s legal rights and duties.

The Law Society delivers activities, where these are not the exclusive domain of the SRA as regulatory arrangements under s21 of the Legal Services Act, but the Legal Services Board (LSB) research finds that the different elements within the practising fees are not widely understood across all legal regulators.

The Council of the Law Society delegates regulatory arrangements to the SRA but provides resources centrally for IT finance and HR. Those resources have been shared and also used by the non-regulatory parts of the Society and also meet the Group reporting requirements. The resources are hosted at the Cube in Birmingham. Members may recall that the SRA moved from Redditch and Leamington Spa to the Cube as a destination of choice to enable it to reshape its culture, workings and cost base. The SRA budget is for the cost of providing services in relation to entry to the profession standards and compliance. It oversees the professional indemnity arrangements and administers the Compensation Fund. It contributes to the costs of the centrally provided resources. The PC fee also includes the levies paid each year to the Legal Ombudsman service and to the Legal Services Board (with its Consumer Panel).

The services delivered by the Law Society will be set out in full in its Report and Accounts to be published shortly. The range of services and roles supporting the profession is extensive and much of the work through specialist committees provides practical know how and guidance that

6 The Bill of Middlesex

council members enables the profession to keep itself up to date with ever changing legislation and market changes. The policies for training work and public interest work such as pro bono initiatives is produced through the delegated boards of the elected Council. The costs for members of the Law Society are explained by the current structure and governance more of which is explained below.

issue of who is eligible for election or appointment and with what time limits or other qualifications is one which has been called into question. Though it undermines the democratic principle, some propose shorter terms of office for elected council members and the placing of limits on tenure.

Others argue it is essential to retain the benefit of corporate knowledge and experience in an environment where turnover on Council and staff is high.

The initial report of the CMA market study though focused on areas of work that are not within the category of ‘reserved activities’ is likely to be coordinated with a review of the scope of regulation and where conveyancing markets are affected reform is likely to take place under the auspices of the Department of Business Innovation and Skills. These developments coincide with two separate, but clearly interrelated, consultations by the SRA and the Council for Licensed Conveyancers.

The third element is internal governance and in the writer’s view at this point in time that this is the most critical. The new chief executive has ,since she took office in January 2015 ,launched, with approval from Council, a new Strategy and Business Plan and has been assembling a new senior management team to review all aspects of the Society’s operations.

Benefits have begun to flow with more consistent and joined up communications to the profession. However, there remains an important piece of work to be undertaken if lessons from the past 10 years are to be fully learned and if the organisation is to emerge stronger and able to lead the modern profession. Solicitors will, more than ever,need timely and effective support to enable them to compete in deregulated markets where professional qualification is no guarantee of recognition, or client loyalty or career satisfaction.

SRA have consulted on a proposal to waive the current requirements for firms they regulate to buy run-off cover if they wish to migrate to another approved regulator. The cost of protection for six years of claims post cessation (run-off) is set by insurers for many firms at three times their annual premium. The Council Licensed for Conveyancers (CLC) have consulted at the same time and intend rapidly to move to a position by 30th June where they end their current master policy arrangements for professional indemnity insurance in favour of open market indemnity insurance.

The new CLC policy subject to LSB approval is that their member firms will buy insurance from participating insurers in much the same way as solicitor firms. The proposed minimum terms of cover broadly reflect the same terms as the SRA minimum terms save that in relation to run-off the cost will be built into each annual premium without any requirement or separate run off payment at cessation.

There is a lack of equivalence in the cover provided in one major respect the amount of the run-off cover available will be a maximum in aggregate (including defence costs) of £2 million over six years. This contrasts with the SRA requirement of £2m minimum for each claim in each and every year.

Apart from questions of gaps in public protection and claims left to fall on the CLC Compensation Fund this appears to be move designed to offer a welcome from the CLC to conveyancing firms –subject to the cost of premiums! For the SRA, it opens a door enabling firms they regulate good and bad - to escape at least in respect of conveyancing and probate work from their current regulator to another. For the Law Society one outcome of these prospective changes is that members are more likely in the future to be regulated by for all or part of their activities by a regulator other than the SRA. The Society will need to be able to act quickly and decisively to respond to all these developments and the future needs of members and for that reason a review of governance has begun. A report from an independent reviewer has been widely circulated and was discussed at the Local Law Societies conference of Presidents and Secretaries in May and a paper was brought to Council. This was debated and strong views expressed by many members in Council both during debate and separately. The Law Society governance is complex and the issues fall into three parts - Council its structure, Membership of Council and Internal executive management.

Snippets In recent articles I have discussed proposed changes by the SRA for future training of solicitors culminating in a delay following their recent consultation on the proposal for solicitors Qualifying Examination. Many remain sceptical about the effectiveness of modern tests of knowledge and understanding through multiple choice questions and the blog at http://www.sra.org.uk/sra/policy/training-for-tomorrow/T4T-Blog/Usingmultiple-choice-questions-in-legal-education.page provides an interesting response to this.

Notwithstanding these developments new arrangements for professional training become compulsory for every regulated person from 1 November this year when the points system for measurement of continuing professional development is replaced. The SRA’s new approach means a wider variety of training tools may be utilised to reflect individual needs for the work of individuals and their firm.

Further discussion of that what that entails and ways of meeting the new challenge are being developed by SRA and can be seen from their toolkit and template for a development plan. See https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/cpd/tool-kit/resources/templates.page.

The Judicial Executive Board have proposed in a consultation on Mackenzie friends: • Renaming McKenzie Friends ‘court supporters’; • Replacing current practice guidance to the judiciary on McKenzie Friends with rules of court • Introducing a standard form of notice to the court for litigants in person wishing to use a McKenzie Friend • Developing a plain language guide for litigants in person and McKenzie Friends.

• Banning McKenzie Friends from charging fees or recovering expenses.

Some work has so far been undertaken in relation to all stages. In respect of the Council it is suggested that its decisions should be implemented through delegation to a single board rather than delegated as at present to 3 boards. The existing Management Board would be disbanded but the work of the Membership Board, Legal Affairs and Policy Board and Regulatory Affairs Board would ideally continue at least for a period. Each of the existing boards has sub committees dealing with specialist areas of practice or with regulation and training and have full agendas of timeconsuming work. It is felt that the work of all these boards would overload a senior board whose initial brief ought to be focused on effective implementation of the annual plan and budget and preparing to meet the challenge of the changes proposed by government.

The question of the size of Council and its make up is one that needs constant review to ensure that it remains representative of all parts of the membership and is able to act in the interests of the entire profession. The

But LSB disagree with the ban on fees as they ‘do not believe that the case has been made out for the proposed prohibition on fee charging, as: • the consultation paper does not explain why the Judiciary are unable to deal adequately with any problems created by McKenzie Friends using their existing powers; • it does not present evidence of detriment which is specifically caused by the charging of a fee, and • the impact of the proposed prohibition on consumers is not considered.

Michael Garson Council Member and chair of Management Board

The Bill of Middlesex 7

conveyanciin ng g is moving o on Times change – so why do systems and processes seem to stay the same? Y Yo ou know there must be ways of saving yourself hassle and making your work easier, it’s just that someone needs to make those things real. That’s where we come in.

InfoTrack is a ser vice provider that’s challenging the norm so that conveyancin ng can evolve. With us, you can carr y out all your key tasks – including Searches, SDLT Submissions and AP1 Transfers – within a single website.

Times change – and we’re driving those changes, for you.

Land Registry

Searches

To move on with InfoTrack, visit infotrack.co.uk /movingon or call 020 7922 5777

SDL LT

AP1

local news council members

Editor’s Column Welcome to the latest issue of “The Bill of Middlesex.”

SUNDEEP BHATIA

T

his is an exciting time for the Society with a new President and committee.

The Governan-ce review of the national Law Society is moving apace and Michael Garson, Middlesex Law Society and Council Member, as well as Chairman of its Management board discusses some of the issues involved in his thoughtful article.

I have had the privilege of attending two conferences since the last issue of the Bill.

The first of these was the Presidents and Secretaries Conference, held on the 6th and 7th May, referred to in our President’s article.

The speech of Jonathan Smithers, the current President of the National Law Society, is also printed in full in this issue.

The best aspects of the conference were the networking opportunities as well as the workshops which gave advice on topics such as how to successfully lobby your MP, hints on creating a compelling website, and hints on running a local Law Society with separate workshops for small and large Societies.

It is important for the national Law Society to maintain close links with local societies and I felt that the conference was successful in achieving this. This was a wise way for the national Law Society to use its resources and goodwill to great effect.

Council Member, Peter Wright, who terrified and entertained delegates with the dangers posed to the solicitors profession by information technology breaches.

The whole conference was a reminder of the vitality and sheer number of sole practitioners, including myself, who make up the legal profession.

As we go to Press the Solicitors Regulation Authority have just published their first consultation on slimming down their Handbook to its bare bones.

The first step is to consult on revising the Principles and the code of conduct.

At the same time the SRA is also consulting on its new account rules.

Both arrived on my desk this morning and have a 16-week consultation window ending on 21st September.

I shall be reviewing both consultations in some detail and will be taking a great interest in them.

The reason for that is simple.

From the 1st September I shall take Office as the new Chair of the Regulatory Affairs Board, after being elected unopposed, so any Law Society response is going to fall on my watch!

If you will excuse me I have some reading to do and will report back in the next issue of the Bill which is due in August.

The second conference was the Sole Practitioners Group “Top Enjoy this issue!

Table” event which was held in the picturesque setting of the Hanbury Manor Hotel Country Club Hertfordshire on Saturday 14th May. SUNDEEP BHATIA The Top Table title neatly summarised the concept.

Delegates sat in on different table sessions with the President of the Law Society, representatives of the Solicitors Regulation Authority, the new CEO of the Legal Services Ombudsman and with cyber security legal expert, and fellow Law Society

Editor of The Bill of Middlesex Middlesex Law Society Committee Member.

Law Society Council Member for Ethnic Minorities

The Bill of Middlesex 9

news

Championing local law societies - Presidents' and Secretaries' Conference speech On 6 May, Jonathan Smithers, president of the Law Society, delivered a speech at the Presidents' and Secretaries' Conference 2016.

Introduction Thank you Nick for your introduction.

Ladies and gentlemen.

It is a privilege to open this year's Presidents' and Secretaries' Conference.

It is very good to see so many familiar faces.

As many of you will know, I have been involved in local law societies for over 25 years. In 2002, I was president of Tunbridge Wells, Tonbridge and District Law Society and in 2007-2008 I was president of Kent Law Society - so I have sat where you are sitting now.

I know first-hand how hard you work for your constituents. So, I want to start by thanking you for your drive, determination and commitment, to support, promote and represent them to the best of your ability.

1. The importance of local law societies Local law societies are vital for the work of the Law Society of England and Wales - you are one of our most important stakeholders:

Our relationship management team has grown over the last year, giving you greater access to the support you may need from the Society in your local area.

Furthermore, our comprehensive education and training programmes help members and firms remain current and competitive.

But, supporting, promoting and representing our members is much more than just about the products and services we offer. It is about: • Fighting for causes that affect you by using the Law Society's influence to ensure that the public continues to benefit from the rule of law and the legal services sector goes from strength to strength.

• Helping our members to prepare for the future we know that solicitors are innovators and that they are responding to changes in a highly competitive legal services market. Through our work the Law Society is helping them to make informed decisions, to foresee challenges and to maximise opportunities in their areas of practice.

I will give you a few examples on how we have done so in the past year.

• Firstly, you help us build our evidence base.

Gathering information from members on the local issues that are affecting them is crucial for our influencing work. Last year, for example, we issued a series of surveys to gather information on the impact of the proposed court closures, court fees and business and human rights. You responded to our call for evidence and gave us useful case studies on how the changes proposed by the government affected solicitors and local communities. We used this information to inform our official response and made the case to the Ministry of Justice and other decision makers on these important issues.

Similarly, you have a been a 'useful thermometer' and alerted us of issues coming down the track that could affect the profession.

• Secondly, you are a force for change.

Last year, we produced a campaigner pack to enable our members raise concerns with their local MPs on access to justice. You helped us to distribute and promoted these materials with local solicitors using your own channels.

Some local law societies even took this one step further and lobbied parliamentarians directly, using our briefings and materials, which helped raise the profile of the issue with politicians.

• Thirdly, you bring our local members together.

Local law societies represent a varied and diverse membership of a region.

Regardless of whether these solicitors work on contentious or non-contentious issues, in-house or private practices, the networking activities, annual dinners and award ceremonies provide members with a forum that brings them all together and helps to bind the profession

2. Striving for our members It has been a busy year for solicitors. It has been a year from the general election and changes to government policy, advances in technology, and a stuttering economy have meant that we have had to adapt so that the legal services sector continues to flourish.

The wealth of membership services we have to offer is vital in helping our members thrive in a changing landscape.

Our various practice notes on topics such as unbundling civil legal services and anti-money laundering enable you to do your job effectively.

10 The Bill of Middlesex

3. Fighting for causes that affect you . a. Legal professional privilege The Law Society has been campaigning for the protection of legal professional privilege (LPP).

We all know that protecting our client's fundamental right to communicate candidly and confidentially with us is vital for the proper administration of justice.

This principle is coming under scrutiny as part of the Investigatory Powers Bill currently going through Parliament. But we will continue to engage with the government to ensure that the right balance between security, safety and clients' rights to protection of their legal professional privilege is achieved. As I talk to members around the country about the issue, it is clear that they share this view.

So as the collective voice for solicitors, it is the Law Society leading the way in helping to preserve LPP for our clients. b. Access to justice A significant amount of my work has been focused on influencing decision makers and working with stakeholders to argue that justice be accessible to all. This has involved: • giving evidence to the Justice Select Committee on court and tribunal fee • raising the Society's concerns with senior politicians about the criminal legal aid process • acting as a spokesperson in the media following the announcement of the closure of 86 courts and tribunals.

The government has made a number of important announcements during this period: • suspension of the the criminal court charge by the lord chancellor • the abandonment on the criminal legal aid tender • reinstatement of legal aid for victims of domestic violence thanks to the successful challenge in the Court of Appeal brought by the Public Law Project

news on behalf of Rights of Women - a challenge made with financial support of the Law Society.

We also await the findings of the wider review into court charges on offenders and the Justice Select Committee is expected to issue its report on court fees shortly. c. Business and human rights During my inauguration speech last year, I asserted that upholding the rule of law would be a central theme of my presidential year. As part of this I wanted to lead on the issue of business and human rights to ensure that our profession was able to shape the debate in this important area.

I have actively campaigned at home and abroad to show that the promotion of business and respect for human rights go hand in hand.

This has led to national and international change: This has led to national and international change: • By using the authority of the Law Society of England and Wales, I was able to persuade Law Asia, an organisation representing 20 nations, including Australia, Cambodia, Hong Kong, Japan, Laos, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam, to sign up to an accord on business and human rights which requires their Bars and law societies to educate their members on this subject.

• Solicitors across the country are advising their clients on weaving human rights into the fabric of their culture. Not only will this help to protect them from unnecessary risk and damaging PR, but will also enhance their reputation and even increase profitability.

• Firms in England and Wales are helping their clients, including large businesses, comply with the reporting requirements of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, including the preparation of annual trafficking and slavery statements.

Awareness of business and human rights is a central part of corporate transactional work and compliance.

4. Helping our members to prepare for the future We have also scanned the horizon to identify the opportunities, trends and challenges and support our members to plan for the future. a. Our relationship with the European Union Next month, on 23 June, the nation will make one of the biggest decisions it has faced for a generation.

Regardless of the politics behind this referendum, it is essential to remember our role as solicitors in the discussions about the country's membership to the European Union (EU): • to bring order to chaos • to be the voice of reason • to look at today's facts and anticipate tomorrow's needs.

As the Law Society, and as solicitors, we have been adding value to the debate by providing an objective and dispassionate assessment of the potential change in our country's membership, and its potential impact on our firms, businesses and clients.

Although the Law Society maintains a neutral stance on whether we should stay or leave the EU, we recognise that members could be affected depending on their level of exposure to EU law. That is why we commissioned two reports on the issue: • Independent research from Oxford Economics to explore the economic impact of the country's withdrawal from the European Union on the legal services sector • Our own research, assessing the possible affects of a Brexit vote on the practice of law.

One of the conclusions suggested that in the event of an exit from the EU, the economic output for the legal sector would continue to grow but at a notably slower rate.

Legal services would be disproportionately and adversely affected over the long term when compared to some other areas of the economy.

Having been the focus of many discussions among solicitors, widely reported in the media and debated in the House of Commons, the reports have yielded widespread attention.

b. Technology and the future of legal services Regardless of the outcome, we must look beyond the referendum.

That is why we conducted research to identify what the future might bring for the legal profession. The findings are part of our new report, The Future of Legal Services, which shows that solicitors face a future of change.

One of these drivers of change is technological innovation. During my presidency I have tried to shape the debate around this topic and I have undertaken a number of activities to achieve this aim.

• I presented my thinking on the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on the law in a presentation at the Union Internationale des Avocats Conference in Valencia.

• I am currently hosting a series of thought leadership events on our new report, exploring with experts the implications of technology on the justice system and on legal practice.

• On 21 June, I am hosting the Society's conference on AI, machine-learning technology and the law. It will explore the legal, ethical and societal implications of the use of this type of technology.

These activities have contributed to position the Law Society as a thought leader in this field. I was recently invited by the Royal Society to give evidence on the legal consequences of machine-learning technology as part of an expert working group on this issue.

My presentation on AI has been quoted extensively in national and trade press and the Society is perceived by members and stakeholders as the leading voice. c. Using social media for member engagement Communicating essential information with members and local law societies through different channels has been a central part of my work.

Now I am sure that many of you will agree that engaging all 166,000 members face to face would be somewhat difficult. Thanks to our increasingly interconnected world, interacting with members digitally has meant that I can engage at the tap of my iPad. So, I put in place a digital strategy to communicate with members and reach audiences with which the Society had limited contact in the past.

As part of this, I have launched a Law Society president Twitter account (@lawsocpresident) that has almost 1,200 followers and introduced a monthly video blog to communicate essential information and updates to our members.

The levels of engagement through these channels has been encouraging, and I know that Robert Bourns and Joe Egan will continue to build on this success in years to come.

5. Conclusion To conclude I want to reiterate that you, the presidents and secretaries of local law societies, are central to our work.

Even though I am speaking from the stage today I want to emphasise that I have been in your shoes, I have done your roles and I know how hard you work for your local members.

We are equal, we share a real connection, I am one of you.

The other office holders and I really do appreciate the invitation to the events that you organise: your dinners, your annual general meetings, your award ceremonies.

These activities are a chance to meet your members and hear their concerns, so please keep the invitations coming.

After all, the Law Society of England and Wales is your law society. We are here to support you, to promote the services you offer and to represent you both at home and abroad.

Jonathan Smithers President Law Society

The Bill of Middlesex 11

news

Law Society Council meeting summary: 18 May 2016

C

ouncil's third meeting of the 2016 calendar year saw a busy programme of reports and papers. In agreeing the Law Society’s new strategy in 2015, Council committed to review the Society’s governance. On 18 May Council took a further step in considering proposals for change.

Council discussed a paper from its Governance Review Working Group, which had considered proposals made by Dr Nicola Nicholls who undertook an independent review, and agreed to ask the working group to develop further proposals in more detail.

The Law Society is keen to hear from members as we develop proposals and will communicate more widely about suggestions as they evolve. We have a dedicated e-mail address for members: representation@lawsociety.org.uk and another for Council members: governancereview@lawsociety.org.uk. Council discussed a range of proposals including the creation of a senior board, how the board could be chaired and how board members and other governance positions could be appointed, and whether a maximum term for council members should be introduced.

Promoting the profession market and regulatory change Council noted that the consultation on separating legal regulators from their professional bodies has still not been issued, and given the forthcoming referendum the timing remains uncertain.

It was noted that the Law Society is fully engaged with the current Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) study of legal services, having last month submitted a response to a number of supplementary questions received from the CMA, and being in the process of facilitating contacts between CMA and a number of Society committees and others. Updates were provided on a number of policy issues, including engagement with Briggs LJ on his interim report on proposals for online courts; the Society's work to engage with our members and with external stakeholders in the debate on Britain's membership of the EU; and ongoing work to influence legal aid policy.

Council heard about the work the Law Society

12 The Bill of Middlesex

is undertaking to promote solicitors. This included a programme of research with solicitors and their clients, and messages are being developed for the forthcoming campaign: these will be thoroughly tested with the wider membership, the public, and businesses that buy legal services.

Among media coverage referred to in the CEO's report, it was noted that the Law Society's report on the economic value of the legal services market had attracted very significant positive coverage in, among others, the Financial Times, and on the Today programme.

Representing the profession legal updates Council noted the legislative programme announced, on the same day as its meeting, in the Queen's Speech. A number of the bills have direct implications for the Law Society, including: • the Bill of Rights - which we will study carefully to ensure that existing human rights are not diluted; • the Children and Social Work Bill - including changes to how the courts consider adoption; • the Prisons and Courts Reform Bill - dealing with courts and tribunals modernisation and the online court; • the Counter-Extremism and Safeguarding Bill - proposing additional powers for Government and law enforcement agencies; • the Criminal Finances Bill - carrying forward reforms on reporting suspicious financial activity and introducing a new offence of corporate failure to facilitate tax evasion.

Related to this issue, the CEO updated Council on the lead recently taken by the Law Society in bringing together a group of legal and accountancy organisations to publish a joint statement pledging ongoing work to tackle bribery, corruption, tax-evasion, and money laundering. Council also noted reference to the Better Markets Bill.

Supporting the profession engagement and other activity Council was glad to hear of the success of the application by the Public Law Project, in which the Society was given permission to intervene, to have the legality of the civil legal aid

residence test quashed by the Supreme Court. Council noted our ongoing collaboration with the Bar over the place of legal professional privilege in the draft Investigatory Powers Bill, and noted that the Law Society is also continuing its intervention in the ECHR challenge brought by Big Brother Watch against the mass data surveillance undertaken by the UK security.

Council noted that the Law Society continues to work closely with a number of other representative groups in advance of the government's expected proposals for a fixed fee regime for some clinical negligence cases.

In terms of access to justice, Council also noted the Law Society's active engagement with the overarching working group on criminal legal aid, the discussions with MoJ and the LAA over the structure of the new crime contracts, and Law Society's continuing work to draw attention to the damaging effects of the programme of court closures. The CEO's report noted the preparation of a 'priorities for justice' document focused on Welsh issues to tie in with the National Assembly elections.

Equality, diversity and inclusion It was reported to Council that there have been 123 applications this year for the Law Society's Diversity Access Scheme which aims to finance training for the profession by those whose circumstances would otherwise make it impossible. Mention was also made of the Women Lawyers Division two-day Returner Course which had attracted significant interest.

Council decided that the reach of its Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Committee should be extended by adding members from the Ethnic Minority Lawyers Division, the Junior Lawyers Division, the Lawyers with Disabilities Division, the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Division, and the Women Lawyers Division. This involved a change to the Law Society's General Regulations.

Council was happy to learn that the Law Society has been successful in securing Investors in People accreditation, excellent recognition of the work the Society puts into developing, recognising and supporting our people.

news

Celebrating 10 years of Excellence The deadline for entries has now been extended to Friday 3 June.

For a decade now we have been recognising the very brightest and best in the legal profession, rewarding exceptional people, teams and organisations. Never has it been more important to celebrate the outstanding contributions being made by individual solicitors and firms.

In 2016 we are celebrating 10 years of excellence. Highlighting those who are shining lights in innovation, and the people and organisations that are developing new ways to help their clients.

The awards ceremony will take place on Thursday 20 October, where the winners will be announced.

If you want to make a nomination, for this year’s special 10 year anniversary Law Society Excellence Awards, the deadline for entries is Friday 3 June.

Remarkable individuals - which solicitors have made the greatest contribution to the sector in the last 12 months? We recognise exceptional individuals across seven categories.

Exceptional firms - which law firms have made a real impact in the past year? For our tenth anniversary we are proud to include a new firm category, recognising inhouse teams.

We want to hear about the most inspirational teams and individuals, those who really make the legal professional shine. So don’t miss out on this opportunity to celebrate the very best work around.

KEY DATES Deadline for entries Shortlist announced Awards ceremony

Friday 3 June Early August Thursday 20 October 2016

The Bill of Middlesex 13

Your essential assistant.

coordinate communications, track time, and quickly become your faavourite e p oy

’s a

o e ot o e p pac

.

w as

Clio is the most comprehensive, yet e easy-to-use cloud-based legal practice management softwarre. Join tens of thousands of legal prof p essionals who trust Clio to manage and grow their firms.

Sign up at clio.co.uk using promo code UKLAW WSOC2016 fo or a 10% disccount

Clio® and the Clio o Checkmark Logo™ are trademarks or registered trademarks of Themis Solutions Inc. ©2016 Themis Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.

news

Middlesex Law Society Annual General Meeting: 13th April 2016

C

The Annual General Meeting of the Middlesex Law Society took place at the Drayton Court Hotel in Ealing on the 13th April 2016.

At that meeting Gurmeet Khuraud handed over the Presidential reigns to Ariyaratnarajah Sriharan of Sriharans solicitors in Southall.

A new committee has been elected and has started meeting.

The new President is determined to revive the Society to former glories .

This is his second term of office and we wish him luck in his endeavours.

It is good to see that the Committee has been refreshed with some younger members.

The Committee would like to thank Gurmeet for his efforts during his term of Presidency.

TOP: Outgoing President Gurmeet Kharaud and his successor newly elected President Ariya Sriharan.

RIGHT: Passing over of the Presidential title

LEFT: Law Society Council Member Michael Garson informs the AGM of the latest from Chancery Lane.

The Bill of Middlesex 15

property law

New Drainage Guidance for Lawyers Published Highly respected Drainage Law Barrister highlights important Duty of Care requirements for property and planning lawyers.

New guidance is released today for lawyers on drainage requirements for new build developments. Local Authorities are implementing stricter planning controls in favour of more sustainable drainage due, in part, to the challenges presented by climate change The guidance has been prepared by the highly respected barrister and author of “Water and Drainage Law”, John Bates, of Old Square Chambers. Mr. Bates’ guidance note examines how, with the prioritisation now given to Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS), lawyers have to do more to satisfy their duty of care to clients.

Lawyers need to advise clients how SuDS might impact their development sites and give rise to long-term management responsibilities Mr. Bates advises lawyers that there is a presumption in favour of SuDS for development and that SuDS are the preferred approach to managing surface water runoff, adding: “Lawyers should commission a pre-application SuDS report to ascertain whether SuDS are appropriate or not, because this has important legal repercussions for your client.”

Other key points from the Guidance include: • Drainage requirements follow a “hierarchy” of planning approval – and in there is a presumption in favour of SuDS, where appropriate.

• SuDS can take up a significant area of a site and have project cost and long-term maintenance impacts that clients need to be alert to.

About John Bates John mainly practices in environmental law, being a former Chairman of the UK Environmental Law Association and one of the first members of the Bar to specialise in the area. He is the author of the leading practitioner book on drainage law, the loose leaf ' Water and Drainage Law' published by Sweet & Maxwell. John’s first book was 'UK Marine Environmental Law' which was followed by 'UK Waste Law'. He is also co-author of 'Liability for Environmental Harm' (along with former members of Old Square Chambers, Charles Pugh and William Birtles).

He advises on Town and Country Planning matters and is a member of the Planning and Environment Bar Association.

Chambers and Partners quotes John as "highly learned" in the water law field. He recently acted for the Mayor of London over a waste management strategy challenge. A "well-rounded barrister", his areas of expertise also extend to contaminated land, nature conservation issues and nuisance claims - Chambers & Partners 2009

About Old Square Chambers A specialist set with 75 members, including 14 Queen's Counsel, Old Square Chambers provides advocacy, advice and drafting of the highest quality at trial and appellate level

• Lawyers must make reasonable enquiries to determine whether SuDS are an appropriate drainage solution for their client’s site.

Their expertise covers eight areas of law: Employment & Discrimination, Professional Discipline, Personal Injury, Clinical Negligence, Product Liability, Environment, Health & Safety and Public Inquiries.

• The appropriateness of otherwise of SuDS may affect the legal advice given in respect of planning conditions, easements, adoption, maintenance as well as advice relating to insurance cover.

They also have members who specialise in ADR / Mediation within those practice areas. We believe in teamwork and establishing long term working relationships with our clients.

• Lawyers should consult the relevant Local Authority Policies on Sustainable Drainage and seek independent advice from a specialist data provider at pre- and full planning stages.

About GeoSmart Information

The Guidance is available for download at GeoSmart Information’s website :geosmartinfo.co.uk.

Understanding the Guidance – Seminar Announced Recognising the significance of the Guidance, GeoSmart Information is hosting a breakfast seminar for property and planning lawyers at Salters Hall on Thursday 9th June.

John Bates, together with environmental lawyers and drainage experts will explain how Authorities are prioritising SuDS within their planning controls, explain the Guidance Note and discuss what this means in practice for lawyers and their clients.

GeoSmart delivers insight on environmental risk and suitability for property development and infrastructure. As our landscape and climate continually changes, we are the smarter choice for legal and property professionals involved in land transactions and for clients who need to build and protect property in a sustainable way.

As a sister company of ESI, one of the UK’s leading environmental consultancies, our innovative range of desktop reports, data and services is built on a rich heritage of scientific analysis, which enables smarter, more informed decisions.

For more information, please visit www.geosmartinfo.co.uk, email info@geosmartinfo.co.uk or call 01743 276 150.

For further editorial information please contact:

More information on the event here.

David Kempster

www.eventbrite.co.uk

Clear Edge Communications 07780 455635 david@clearedgecomms.co.uk

16 The Bill of Middlesex

accountancy

EU poll swings on Minister’s Speech Following the Chancellor’s Budget speech to the House of Commons in March, McBrides Chartered Accountants invited their clients to attend a Budget Presentation on March 17th with guest speaker the Rt Hon James Brokenshire MP.

As the minister for Immigration, Mr Brokenshire was invited to speak about his decision to vote to stay within the EU. He told the assembled audience: “This is a profound decision that we will be taking. There are a lot of real questions that need to be answered on what we would do if we were outside of the EU. I think we all recognise for business that the ability to harness the market is significant.”

Before being elected as the MP for Old Bexley and Sidcup, Mr Brokenshire was a partner at the London office of international law firm Jones Day where he specialised in company law, corporate finance, takeovers and floatations.

48% of people entering the event said Pictured: Nick Paterno with Guest Speaker they wanted ‘Out’ of Europe with a slim the Rt Hon James Brokenshire MP majority of 52% voting to stay ‘In’.

Following the speech from Mr Brokenshire event: “The discussion on Europe was the vote was re-run and the 'In' vote was energising and thought-provoking. With boosted significantly with 66% of the so many factors for businesses to delegates wishing to remain in Europe. consider it will be important to see how the debate progresses.”

Nick Paterno, who leads a specialist team at McBrides who advise legal professionals across England on accountancy and tax matters, said at the end of the

Delegates at the McBrides Budget Presentation were asked to vote in a mock EU referendum as they entered the event and also asked to vote again when they left two hours later.

Tax changes on goodwill welcomed Goodwill is an important asset for any business and the Chancellor announced in the last Budget that restrictions have been lifted on the availability of Entrepreneurs’ Relief connected to goodwill. This could mean that more of those looking to incorporate will be able to recognise the value of aspects of the business which they have worked hard to create such as good working relationships with clients, client lists and reputation, at a low tax rate.

Didn’t we always have that though?

Prior to the Chancellor’s Autumn Statement to The Commons in 2014 partners could secure ER on the value of goodwill in their business when selling it to a limited company on incorporation (assuming the relevant conditions for the relief were met) so that the gain they realised on sale of this goodwill was taxed at just 10%. However this common and tax efficient way to realise some of the value in the business on incorporation was denied from the 3rd December 2014 onwards when selling goodwill to a related company. This initially meant that even retiring partners were denied the 10% tax rate where their retirement was simultaneous with the incorporation. That same Autumn Statement also saw the Chancellor withdraw corporation tax relief for the company acquiring the goodwill.

While the 2014 changes removed, in many instances, the option to release value from the business at 10%, there have for many years been aspects of the legislation which have meant that incorporation can be effected on a tax neutral basis, so it was to these provisions that business incorporations reverted.

The 2014 Autumn Statement Entrepreneurs’ Relief restrictions were later redrafted to secure a favourable position for retiring partners but at Budget 2016 Mr Osborne took an unexpected step to unwind further the restrictions.

In essence, the definitions have been redrawn for certain incorporations. Where a partnership incorporates and an

individual partner owns personally, or through a corporate entity or trust, less than 5% of the ordinary share capital and voting rights in the newly incorporated business, this restriction will no longer apply.

And this favourable change has been backdated to 3 December 2014.

This news could be useful to minority partners or larger partnerships or LLPs where a greater number of partners gives rise to lower percentage interests.

Pertinent to partnerships This news is pertinent to partnerships as clearly this incentive is not available to a sole trader incorporating their practice and becoming the sole shareholder – they will own more than 5% of the new limited company!

While this change could put tax efficient value release back on the table in some incorporation scenarios, it does not revert to the pre Autumn Statement 2014 position with the loss of Corporation Tax relief in the acquiring company (although perhaps that was always too good to be true).

It’s important to remember that there are a wider range of factors at play when you decide to incorporate - it’s not just about taxes!

If you are considering incorporation for your practice though, it’s important to understand the tax implications.

By Nick Paterno, Legal Services partner at McBrides

The Bill of Middlesex 17

news

Middlesex Law Society

A P P L I C AT I O N

for

(est. 1959)

MEMBERSHIP

!

Surname _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Mr / Mrs / Miss / Ms Forenames _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Name of Firm or Organisation ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Postal Address or DX no: __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Telephone ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Email ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Status & Area of Work _______________________________________________ Date of Admission _____________________________________________________ Would you be interested in joining the Committee? Yes/No I wish to apply for FULL/FIRM/ACADEMIC/ASSOCIATE/STUDENT (YMG) membership of the Society (see below for details) I enclose herewith my cheque for £ _________ for the current year, made payable to "Middlesex Law Society"

Signature ____________________________________________________________ Date _______________________________________________________________ Subscription Rates: Full Individual Membership: £50.00 per annum (more than 3 years admission) £30.00 per annum (less than 3 years admission) Firm Membership: Partners/Solicitors 2-5 £125 per annum 6-10 £250 per annum more than 10 £500 per annum Academic Law Departments: £200 per annum Associate Membership: £15.00 per annum (Trainee Solicitors, ILEX members, Paralegals) Students: £5 per annum (Young Members Group) Please return completed form and remittance to: The Membership Secretary, Middlesex Law Society, Susan Scott-Hunt, Middlesex University, The Burroughs, Hendon NW4 4BT

Tel: 020 8411 6019 e-mail: s.scott-hunt@mdx.ac.uk

!

Commercial Title Insurance Solutions.

Exclusively Online.

Instantly issue over 20 commercial title insurance policies online.

No referral and no more waiting!

Visit www.ctis-title.co.uk for more details.

www. ctis-title.co.uk 01435 868855 underwriters@ctis-title.co.uk

Commercial Title Insurance Specialists &7,6 LV D WUDGLQJ QDPH RI *&6 /WG DQG LV DXWKRULVHG DQG UHJXODWHG E\ WKH ÀQDQFLDO FRQGXFW DXWKRULW\ Registered in England and Wales No. 3623950

18 The Bill of Middlesex

book reviews

MARSHALL HALL A Law unto Himself

By Sally Smith QC WILDY, SIMMONDS & HILL PUBLISHING www.wildy.com

A COMPASSIONATE MAN WHO WILL REMAIN MOST SPECIAL TO ALL ADVOCATES AND TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC An appreciation by Phillip Taylor MBE and Elizabeth Taylor of Richmond Green Chambers This important biography is a book about yesterday for today’s readers before everything changes with the way we do our legal business.

It’s quite possible that the art of the advocate will be modified again very rapidly in the twenty-first century as we see the creation of new ways to resolve disputes with emphasis on the written word and online decisions.

However, Sir Edward Marshall Hall will always remain top of the advocate’s tree as a man who fitted into a particular part of our more recent legal history during that winding down period of what was a particularly brutal and insensitive judicial past.

Sally Smith QC gives us the twenty-first century view of an Edwardian barrister following on the seminal work from Edward Marjoribanks which people of my vintage read as part of our legal studies decades ago.

Counsel today are not (thankfully) viewed in the same way as they were in the early 20th century.

The Bar has rightly moved away from its heavy newspaper emphasis on “celebrity lawyers� in a different media age although we do have a few contemporary contenders whom we all know and love!

The bitchiness and downright hostility and grudge-holding which permeated the Bar of the past are well documented in this thoughtful and well-constructed new biography. Smith has not been constrained by sycophancy which has been the problem of so many biographies when the subject has recently passed on. So we have a reasoned and meticulous analysis for 2016.

he did not so his work should always be read for the excellent points of advocacy and speech detail covered in 1930s. He had to leave certain matters out which were and remain common knowledge about Marshall within the Bar and made him the man he was. We now have a better picture of Marshall the man thanks to Sally Smith.

I am sure most judges are delighted not to have to sit through a modern day Marshall Hall, if she or he could ever exist now. It’s highly unlikely as they would probably be disbarred if not sent to Coventry pretty quickly if they tried some of the splendid devices Marshall used (which still work, actually, but be very, very careful).

Not everyone can be such a good advocate because one cannot, as Marshall’s life shows, learn such an attribute or facility: it has to be experienced. Yes, experience does count but the very frailty and vulnerability of the human condition makes the successful advocate that very special person who was needed at a time of judicial homicide and massive public interest in capital trials.

Fortunately, we can decline the services, generally, of a modern day Marshall because the sanctions are all most moderate in comparison with his time yet the crimes were just as gruesome. There’s something about a capital trial which is always going to be different and the nearest we get to it today here is the death sentence passed on a pet (non-human) unless one has actually represented parties in capital proceedings abroad.

One can reflect, when reading Sally’s exceptionally crafted account of Marshall’s life, why he was the way he was irrespective of the

outcome of his cases and those clients who lied to him: it has happened to all of us, of course.

There is always a bit of Marshall Hall in all of us as advocates even today when we are heavily constrained by what we say and do. The recommendation is that all budding advocates should ensure they read this new wellresearched version of Marshall’s life afresh, especially trainee lawyers at any level.

If he was nothing else, Marshall lives as a man with a warning about how we should do things in our forensic world: with care, meticulous planning and checking, relevant specific expertise and a special flamboyance so often sneered at by some both then and now‌ but it does work!

And this book also works for modern Counsel today and should be compulsory reading for all lawyers and general readers for the future.

Final words are left to Smith at the end of the 19 chapters when she writes that “Marshall was the ultimate exponent of total advocacy: he lived his entire life as though the world was one huge courtroom and its inhabitants a universal jury to beguile. He cared little or nothing for the restraints of his profession, or for the discipline of the law; be he introduced the concept of compassion into a legal system in which it was lacking, was universally adored and trusted by those whom that system is meant to serve, made speeches of such extraordinary power that they have lived on for more than a century and, more important of all, saved many lives.

No other lawyer could claim that.�

Absolutely!

That is not to say that Marjoribanks produced a work with only the good points covered because

7KH FOLHQW IRFXVHG FDVH PDQDJHPHQW V\VWHP WKDW NHHSV HYHU\RQH LQ WRXFK )UHH 7ULDO 1R 6HW 8S )HHV

_ ZZZ LQWRXFKDS FR XN The Bill of Middlesex 19

agricultural law

AGRICULTURAL ROUNDUP Edward Peters, barrister, of Falcon Chambers, looks at some recent developments in the field of agricultural law.

Agricultural occupancy conditions

Drafting of FBTs: recent revisions to the RICS’s precedents

In Shortt v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2015] EWCA Civ 1192 the Court of Appeal considered the meaning of “dependents” in an agricultural occupancy condition. The condition was: "The occupation of the dwelling shall be limited to persons employed or last employed solely or mainly and locally in agriculture as defined by Section 290(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, or in forestry and the dependants (which shall be taken to include a widow or widower) of such persons." The owners of the dwelling, Mr & Mrs Shortt, claimed that they had been in breach of the condition at all material times, and were therefore immune from enforcement action and entitled to a certificate of lawful user. Mrs Shortt had farmed 22 ha. of land, but at a substantial loss. It was the income of Mr Shortt, a successful businessman, which had supported them and their children financially. The Court of Appeal rejected their claim, holding that the word “dependents” did not contain a requirement as to financial dependency on the agricultural worker, but was equally apt to cover a non-financial dependency such as exists within a family relationship.

The RICS has a set of precedents for various forms of farm business tenancy agreements, and cropping & grazing licences. Recent legislative changes have led to the RICS Agricultural Tenancies Monitoring Group revising the precedents in various respects.

Bad Husbandry under Case C In Chapman v Lumb (FTT (Ag Land), 5/11/2015) the landlords succeeded in their application for a certificate of bad husbandry under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 (Schedule 3, part 2, para. 9). The Tribunal applied the tests set out in R (Davies) v Phillipps [2007] EWHC 1395 (Admin) and Goldsmid v Hicks (SE/AT/1547), and concluded that the permanent pasture was not being maintained in good condition, that there was serious overstocking, & that necessary repairs and maintenance were not being carried out. The Tribunal concluded there was no realistic prospect of improvement, because the Respondent was “unhappily caught between a rock and a hard place, where because of the current parlous condition of the farm and mismanagement he cannot switch to a reduced stock system nor maintain his current system of farming going forward.”

Tax: hobby farming and the “reasonable expectation of profit” test In Silvester v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (FTT (Tax), 5/11/2015) the Tribunal held that the restriction on loss relief for farming losses under s. 67 of the Income Tax Act 2007 was not limited to “hobby farming”, but included farming carried out on a commercial basis with an expectation of profit. The Tribunal also considered the correct approach to be taken when applying the “reasonable expectation of profit” test, and the meaning of “activities” in s. 68 of the ITA 2007.

In Scambler v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (TC/2014/05306, FTT (Tax), 7/12/2015) the Tribunal held that the activities referred to in s. 68(3)(b) of the ITA 2007 were the activities carried on at the start of the loss period, not the year of the loss claim. The Tribunal noted the difficulties of applying the test in s.

68(3)(b) to a farming business, such as Mr Scambler’s dairy farm, “where such a significant component of the business’s profitability (the milk price) is outside the farmers’ control. … On his milk yield … each 1 penny decline in the milk price meant an annual drop in income of £18,000”; but concluded that the volatility in the farm gate price of milk was not sufficient to satisfy the test in s. 68(3)(b): “the future milk price was unknown, but that did not mean that it was reasonable to expect no profits for the next five years.”

20 The Bill of Middlesex

Milk quota abolition. Following the 2015 abolition, specific provisions dealing with milk quota have been removed, and the dairy/non-dairy agreements merged; but some general references to ‘quotas’ have been retained, to encompass remaining quota schemes (beet quota will subsist until 2017) and any future ‘quotas’ which may be introduced.

The basic payment scheme. The provisions concerning subsidies and environmental regulations are drafted in an all-inclusive manner, with the aim of applying to all such schemes, even if they are altered or introduced during the term of the agreement.

However, specific references to the Single Payment Scheme (SPS) have been replaced by references to the Basic Payment Scheme (BPS), and references to environmental schemes have been updated (including Glastir and the relaunched Countryside Stewardship scheme).

The RPA has issued guidance regarding when land will be considered to be “at the disposal of the applicant” for the purposes of the BPS, and various consequential amendments have been made to the agreements: in particular, to the covenants to keep in good agricultural and environmental condition, and to the licensee’s positive obligations in the grazing & cropping licences.

Dispute Resolution clauses. Dispute resolution clauses in tenancy agreements are topical: the Deregulation Act 2015 has widened the means by which disputes concerning 1986 Act tenancies can be resolved, and the court system places ever more emphasis on ADR. The agreements have therefore been revised to include updated and additional forms of dispute resolution clauses.

Repairs & insurance. The Agriculture (Model Clauses for Fixed Equipment) (England) Regulations 2015 introduced new Model Clauses concerning repairs and insurance under 1986 Act tenancies, following a process of extensive consultation. The agreements have therefore been revised to include the option of incorporating the new Model Clauses in place of the existing expressly drafted provisions concerning repairs and/or insurance.

Edward Peters is a barrister at Falcon Chambers, a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, and the barrister member of the RICS Agricultural Tenancies Monitoring Group. He specialises in all aspects of real property and landlord and tenant law, including agriculture.

http://www.falcon-chambers.com http://www.falcon-chambersarbitration.com

probate

Tesco Law is Dead!

by Gregory van Dyk Watson, Managing Director of Isokon Limited

Fear of Tesco Law Many lawyers had believed that they would be at risk of losing the bulk of their probate business to a national company, who might invade their marketplace with huge capital investment and a massive media campaign. They referred to this imaginary phenomenon as Tesco Law. The evidence is that this has not manifested itself.

Your reputation is fundamental The competitor is not Tesco Law, nor the online advert offering a cut price service, nor the teenage son who believes he can do the work just as competently at zero cost. Your reputation is fundamental to securing the work, without which your Will Bank can quickly become a wasted resource.

Profitability requires more than knowledge of the law

Requirement is for a probate accounting system

Many law firms regard probate work as a legal matter, as opposed to a process.

Clearly an overriding knowledge of the law is fundamental to estate administration, but it is insufficient to ensure the profitability of your probate department.

For the process to be effective, it is axiomatic that a probate accounting system is required to handle the financial details of an estate, where data is entered once only.

Most of us trust the law firm holding dad’s will

Probate/Estate Administration is primarily a process

The facts are that Tesco Law was a chimera. It was never a serious contender for probate work. Most of us will still call our known and trusted law firm when we experience a death in the family. It is after all where Dad’s, Mum’s or Grandad’s will has been safeguarded over the years.

The basics are relatively straightforward prove the will, identify and value the assets and liabilities, assess the tax, collect the money and pay the beneficiaries. Of course, this is a gross oversimplification.

But the fact remains that probate work is primarily a process.

The goal is to achieve a 70% Gross Profit Margin

Accounting and Case Management defeat Tesco Law

The real challenge to the law firm is the law firm itself - to deliver a quality service while keeping costs down. On the surface these appear to be divergent objectives. The goal of the modern efficient law firm should be to achieve a Gross Profit Margin (GPM) of 50% at the very least. And ideally closer to 70%. This is being achieved by a number of probate departments.

Competent software consists of an all embracing accounting engine designed to cope with the full variety of assets and liabilities (other than in the most basic estates) together with an integrated case management system with workflows, a calendar of reminder tasks, and a mailmerge facility to extract the data from the accounting database. The two need to work hand in hand with each other. One without the other will not succeed.

Profitability via the efficient use of technology The only way to reach these levels of profitability is through efficient use of technology. Almost all articles about probate estate administration deal with the legal issues, with no regard to the actual organisation of the work - the very area in which your profit or loss is determined.

Consequently estate accounts and IHT forms can be produced with the proverbial click of a mouse. Any firm that is not properly organised around well developed competent software is in competition with itself.

Devolving the work equals profitability This technology will enable you to devolve much of the routine work to the lesser qualified members of the team paralegals and secretaries. Properly trained and supervised, they will be able to input financial data and generate letters and documents. Alternatively, the work can be done just as easily by fee earners without the need for support staff.

It is a tried and tested business model This business model is proven, and it works. And the cost savings are significant. The time saved will enable the more qualified members of the private client team to devote more time to supervision and client care.

For further information please contact: Gregory van Dyk Watson, Managing Director of Isokon Limited.

Email: gregory@isokon.com or call 020 7482 6555. Alternatively visit www.isokon.com Isokon was founded by Gregory van Dyk Watson in 1999. The company has invested 44,000 man hours in development of the product over the last 17 years.

Isokon is currently the leading supplier of software for Probate and Private Client work. It is used by 40% of law firms who do private client work. Isokon is used by more than 2,000 individual users for the most complex estates, as well as basic estates.

Isokon is based on an accounting database engine with an integrated Isokon case management component.

The Bill of Middlesex 21

probate

HEIR LOCATORS’ FEES - WHO SHOULD PAY? Professor Lesley King, Private Client Head of Practice at The College of Law, Bloomsbury, looks at the options available to legal professionals and their clients.

The process of administering most estates is relatively straightforward. Personal representatives (PRs), with or without professional help, collect in the assets and, having settled liabilities, pay what remains to the beneficiaries. Administration expenses such as the cost of the funeral and the professional fees of solicitors, estate agents, valuers and accountants are met by the estate.

However, sometimes there are problems identifying and/or locating those entitled to share in the estate. In such cases the PRs will rely on the services of professional genealogists, sometimes known as ‘heir hunters’. These firms are extremely good at what they do and will normally have little difficulty identifying and locating the beneficiaries. However, there are some problems for PRs in relation to paying for these services.

There are broadly two options available. The first is an agreement that the heir hunter should receive a share of the beneficiary’s entitlement, often called a ‘contingency fee’. The second is that the professional charges for their services, which may be on a fixed-fee arrangement or based on the time taken to complete the work (typically known as time and expenses).

22 The Bill of Middlesex

No PR who instructs a firm on the basis of either time and expenses or a fixed fee service could be criticised for having done so. On the other hand, there are risks associated with the contingency fee model.

Under a contingency fee model, once the heir hunters have located a beneficiary, they will ask him or her to sign an agreement instructing the PRs to pay a percentage of the beneficiary’s share in the estate to the heir hunter. It is not unusual for fees of 30% and more to be charged. Alternatively, the heir hunters might ask the PRs to sign an agreement stating that they will pay a proportion of the share of located beneficiaries to the heir hunter. Either way, the beneficiary is deprived of a proportion of their rightful entitlement.

There is, of course, nothing wrong with a beneficiary deciding to share their entitlement with a third party (deeds of variation are commonly entered into to do exactly that) but in this instance the PR is imposing an obligation on the beneficiary to do so. It is difficult to see how this can be justified.

In an article on this subject in Private Client Business 293 (2005), Richard Wilson and Constance Mahoney of 9 Stone Buildings said: “In the authors’ view, whilst there is no authority which provides assistance on this point, it is possible that a beneficiary might successfully argue that the personal representative has acted in breach of duty by

appointing an heir locator on such a basis, and should be personally accountable for the share that the beneficiary has paid to the heir locator.”

PRs cannot require a beneficiary to agree to assign a share of their entitlement to the PR. Therefore, it must follow that an agent acting on their behalf must be similarly prohibited. There is also an issue as to whether PRs can properly disclose information about the estate to someone who is going to use that information to make a profit for themselves.

Clearly where beneficiaries have to be located, there are unavoidable fees involved and PRs are entirely justified in incurring such costs. However, they are in a fiduciary position and must act in the best interests of the estate. If services have to be obtained, the PRs should use the most cost effective method of obtaining them.

This is a difficult area of the law to interpret and practitioners should think carefully about how the work involved in tracing beneficiaries should be funded and where the costs should fall.

This is a redacted version of an article that was first published on Title Research’s website in February 2016. To read the full article, visit: www.titleresearch.com

probate

Protecting Property When somebody dies, the largest element that makes up their estate is usually their home. This is often their own property, filled with a lifetime of memories, keepsakes and belongings. After the owner’s death, this building and its contents take on a very different role and to an administrator. The property is viewed in more simple terms and is very often the estates most valuable asset.

As you all know, it is the role of the estate administrator to ‘manage’ and ‘realise’ these assets, but there is so much more work involved in these two words than meets the eye.

They bring a whole new set of challenges to manage. These include the largely unpredictable British weather and the evenings provide criminals with perfect opportunities for acts of burglary and vandalism. Insurance company Aviva shared

their claims statistics for the ten years between 2002-2012, and reported a 150% increase in claims for malicious damage to homes during this period.

More vulnerable empty properties such as probate properties are at even greater risk of damage from vandalism and weather.

Empty properties such as these hit the headlines last year when an article in the Telegraph stated: ‘More than 700,000 residential properties in England are left unoccupied, according to the charity Empty Homes. These vacant properties are often managed by people taking responsibility for the estate or affairs of another person or while a property is awaiting sale. However, many wrongly assume that existing buildings and contents cover would provide adequate protection should something go wrong and as a result, hundreds of thousands of homes are currently uninsured’.

With the demands of your workload you would perhaps struggle to see how you might arrange them all yourself. This is another area, in addition to our more widely

known research, where our experienced staff at Fraser & Fraser would work with you, providing you with a trusted partner to offer support throughout the lifecycle of your case.

Things to consider: - Maintenance & Security - Empty Property Insurance - Property Valuations - Energy Performance Certificate - Probate sales - Property Clearance If you are administering an estate with which you require our assistance or are experiencing difficulties, contact one of our case managers now to discuss how we can help: legal@fraserandfraser.co.uk or 020 7832 1430

The Bill of Middlesex 23

professional practice Sixth & Seventh chapters in the series of extracts from the...

The Rise and Fall of Legal Aid

by Alured Darlington

“I truly hope this book is published - there was a time when everybody was entitled to be represented and put forward their defence, innocent until proved guilty. Without legal aid to give clients the representation everyone deserves, what will become of our society? I honestly dread to think.

This book will be a reminder of the ‘good old days’ and an insight to young ones into the legal aid system as it was and how it should remain” Foreward by Jean Brathwaite, Legal Secretary

Chapter Six

Domestic Violence In 1978 I was still a private practitioner and as such I was instructed by three local women’s refuges to act on behalf of their clients in obtaining protection orders and/or custody orders. At the time the police were not interested in ‘domestics’. They were regarded as family matters which did not merit police attention.

The three refuges were Chiswick Women’s Aid, headed by the redoubtable Erin Pizzey, Ealing Women’s Aid and Acton Women’s Aid. I appeared to be the only solicitor in Ealing instructed to carry out this work .I was told by one client that I was the thirteenth solicitor she had consulted as none of the others were interested in this kind of work. And I did not think it right to represent only women. I defended men also if they asked me. Thus domestic violence work became a full time occupation.

Erin Pizzey, the pioneer of the Women’s refuge movement, was a law unto herself. The refuge she ran in Chiswick broke every safety law in the book but somehow she avoided prosecution or closure.

Her philosophy was that that no one who sought refuge should ever be turned away. It may be because of that that the local council turned a blind eye to her activities. In later life she became somewhat disenchanted by the number of women who returned to their abusive partners but remained a force to be reckoned with in the women’s refuge movement.

Sometimes in obtaining the return of a missing child it was necessary to go the High Court to make the child a ward of court.

In one case before doing so it became necessary to shield the child at our home. On taxation, (assessment), of our costs the taxation master insisted on giving me an additional sum for what he described as ‘the tea and biscuits’.

Chapter Seven

I have been having second thoughts In late 1978 I was in Court One of the Royal Courts of Justice acting out my role of instructing solicitor. My leading counsel was James Comyn QC, doyen of the Bar, and who was to be appointed a High Court Judge a month after the case. My junior counsel was Judith Parker also due to be appointed a High Court Judge - but thirty years later. The respondent was represented by counsel of equal eminence.

The Court consisted of Lord Denning, then at the height of his powers, (and some might say at his most provocative), Mr Justice Baker the President of the Family Division, and three other judges. The Court had been increased from a normal three judges to five in an attempt to justify the Court of Appeal departing from earlier decisions that held that a woman cohabiting with a man, but not married to him, was not entitled to obtain an ‘ouster’ injunction requiring him to leave the home. The law appeared to have been settled by two cases, Cantliffe v Jenkins and B v B which held that ‘An Englishman’s home was his castle’.

The most an unmarried partner could hope to obtain was a non-molestation injunction. This gave her no real protection when the parties were still living together in the same house. It was only after the hearing that I learned that County Court Judges up and down the country had been entreating Mr Justice Baker to look into the situation and he had consulted Lord Denning when the fresh challenge in this case came before the Court.

A few minutes before the hearing was due to begin my client Ms D told me that she was having second thoughts about whether to proceed with her claim to oust her partner Mr J. I told her that was absolutely fine by me and that if that was going to be her decision all she had to do was to let me know. I took the view that as she was the client it was her case and no one else’s. She had absolutely the right to proceed or not to do so as she thought fit and I had no right to influence or impede her decision whatever important legal issues there might be at stake.

...other pages will be published in forthcoming the Bill of Middlesex or if you can’t wait, go online: http://issuu.com/benham/docs/the-rise-and-fall-of-legal-aid 24 The Bill of Middlesex

risk and compliance

Consumer Credit and CPDThe New Compliance Regimes 2016 sees two important new issues for solicitor to consider in their compliance with the SRA’s rules. The final resolution of the long running consumer credit issue and the need for all firms to transition to the new CPD structure.

Consumer Credit The changes to consumer credit have resulted from the ending of the blanket approval previously granted to the Law Society. The SRA had a temporary exemption while they decided how to proceed. Initially it looked as though the SRA would decline to regulate solicitors at all for consumer credit work, leaving all firms who needed to offer credit to seek direct permission from the FCA. In the end, however, pressure and good sense has prevailed and the SRA has decided to offer a form of regulation.

number of hours and no requirement that training be obtained from approved providers. From the CPD year beginning in November 2016 all lawyers must self-assess against the range of basic competencies set down by the SRA and their individual practice needs.

In the meantime the legal position has changed as well and the rules around short instalment credit have been relaxed slightly. This form of credit has always been exempt from regulation. This means that any credit arrangements which:

They must then undertake appropriate training to fill identified gaps.

In theory, therefore, a lawyer who knew everything necessary for their work area, was totally up to date, and had no skill shortages could do no training at all and meet the requirements. Such a lawyer, however, is likely to be very rare. More realistically, a senior conveyancer who had kept up to date and had all the necessary skills might only need a half day of legal updating.

• Are agreed before the debt is incurred; • Are for not more than 12 months; • Involve 12 or less repayments; • Are for a fixed sum; • Are for our services; • Involve no charge or interest at all; and • Are not secured on land.

By contrast a junior litigator might need to carry out 30-40 hours of training in CPR updates, specific legal areas, and core skills. The need will depend entirely on the individual and their requirements. By the same token, simply continuing to do 16 hours of training will not be acceptable because there will have been no assessment of training need and the 16 hours carried out may not be suitable.

Will be outside the ambit of consumer credit. However, the view of the SRA is that this exemption only applies where the credit is agreed prior to the debt falling due. Therefore, where a bill has already been rendered and payment by instalments is then offered this exemption will not apply. It would be sensible therefore for firms to ensure that where they might be prepared to offer instalments that they ensure this is discussed in advance with the client.

While there will not be any specific checks made all solicitor must make a declaration that they have carried out an assessment each year and fulfilled its findings. If you come to the attention of the SRA for some other reason they have made clear that they will be looking at training records as part of any other investigation.

A further relaxation has been created for legal work which only tangentially involves credit. This includes debt advice work and the pursuance of consumer credit debt. Where the above exemptions do not apply or the firm wants to offer a more complete credit option with fees or interest being charged then they will need to take charge of the Exempt Professional Firms regime. This is the system which has caused so much consternation as it must be regulated by the SRA under licence from the FCA. The SRA has taken this responsibility on and the regime is not in place. There is no substantial addition to the rulebook but the SRA has issued guidance highlighting how the already existing key outcomes and principles link to the consumer credit regime and how they might be complied with. Key things that need to be done to ensure that compliance is being achieved is for the solicitor to: • Ensure the client understands the arrangement and its consequences for them; • Consider the appropriateness of the arrangement proposed for our client; • Provide the client with sufficient information to allow them to assess and understand the arrangement themselves; • Assess the credit worthiness and ability to pay of the client; • Monitor the arrangement throughout its lifetime.

This will require a short statement of the client’s needs, a consideration of other arrangements, a clear statement of the credit deal on offer, a process to assess the ability of the client to fund the arrangement, and ongoing monitoring to make sure that they are paying on time and have no further problems.

CPD Changes Lawyers have long been familiar with the need to do 16 hours of CPD courses each year. One of the weaknesses of this system has been that in some case the training being done is not particularly relevant to the individual lawyer’s practice and the drive to do the set number of hours becomes more important than actually obtaining relevant updates and extending knowledge. The new regime has no specific

By David Smith, Partner and Head of Compliance at Anthony Gold

Established since 1964, we have achieved 50 years of providing accountancy excellence to businesses in and around London and further afield in the United Kingdom.

Our strength comes from our determination, our commitment to our clients and ability to face challenges of the economic climate without compromising the quality of our services, for which we are justifiably very proud.

Our firm is structured into departments for Taxation, Audit, Accountancy, Book-keeping and Payroll, IT Systems and Company Secretarial Service.

Our specialisation includes Reports on Solicitors Accounts Rules.

Our office on Ritz Parade, London W5 3RA, next to “Premier Inn London” is situated adjacent to the Hanger Lane and Park Royal Underground Tube Stations and is well placed for London and its surrounding environs.

Call: Arvind Joshi FCA, CTA, DChA Tel: 020 8932 1932 Fax: 020 8932 0122 arvind@levyandpartners.com www.levyandpartners.com

The Bill of Middlesex 25

risk and compliance

Being Authorised by the FCA You’re authorised! What next?

Nicola Crump of Signature Compliance gives an overview of what it means to be a newly authorised firm operating in the consumer credit market and provides guidance on what firms should be focussing on in respect of evidencing their compliance.

Responsibility for regulating the consumer credit sector transferred to the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) from the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) in April 2014.

In the Financial Conduct Authority’s Data Bulletin Supplement in April 2016 it is noted that by the end of December 2015, 32,070 firms had applied for authorisation, this figure includes both new applications and firms with interim permission who were previously licenced by the OFT. According to the FCA’s data, by the end of December 2015 27,093 applications were determined with 95% of these resulting in a firm being authorised (25,645 applications were approved, 40 applications were refused and 1,408 were withdrawn by firms).

For those firms who embarked upon the application process having interim permission, they will have noticed already the difference between the OFT and FCA, with the FCA having a broader range of powers and more resources than the OFT. The FCA’s application process, particularly for ‘full permission’ is lengthy, complex and demonstrates the regulator’s appetite for firms to adequately demonstrate its ability and willingness to meet the Handbook rules, including but not limited to the high-level principles and the threshold conditions.

For those 25,000 plus firms now authorised, what is next? Firms would certainly be foolish to think that once they are authorised, the focus upon compliance within their firm should in any way lessen. In fact, this is when the hard work begins. First, it is important for every firm to revisit its Regulatory Business Plan to ensure any changes since the date of application have been noted and the regulatory impact considered. Firms should also continue to develop their compliance framework, ensuring they have adequate systems and controls in place which accurately reflect

26 The Bill of Middlesex

the nature, scale and complexity of the firm’s business model and the risk the regulated activity may pose to consumers.

In so doing, firms should scrutinise systems and review their compliance policies, compliance procedures and staff training to ensure their compliance framework is fit for purpose and that firms’ systems and controls more generally are adequate and appropriate. Risk assessments and risk registers often serve as helpful tools which can assist in the identification, monitoring and assessment of the firm’s systems and controls.

Ordinarily, those operating in the consumer credit sector should have key policies in place, which, subject to the business model and type of regulated activity, will include: Data Protection, Responsible Lending, Creditworthiness and Affordability, Collection of Payments, Privacy and Data Sharing, Financial Crime, Vulnerable Customers, Whistleblowing, Complaint Handling, TCF and Financial Promotions.

Management information should, together with a suitable compliance monitoring plan, serve as a key control tool against which the firm’s systems can be assessed. More specifically analysis of this information will help firms evidence that it is delivering the right outcomes for consumers. Firms may use a TCF dashboard as part of their periodic management or board meetings to review relevant management information.

However, where firms do review such information, firms should ensure that any actions raised are recorded and tracked through to action. The FCA is not likely to be satisfied that a firm’s systems and controls are adequate unless those systems and controls provide for the proper implementation resulting actions and a procedure for documenting the same.

A firm should use its risk register to drive its compliance monitoring plan, focusing on the higher risk areas such as: new business/sales, complaint handling, creditworthiness and affordability assessments and collecting payments in arrears. A robust monitoring framework should consist of three lines of defence: with a check, a check on the checker and finally someone ensuring the check on the checker was properly undertaken.

Once authorised, firms will also have to meet the FCA’s regulatory requirements on Approved Persons, controllers of the firm, regulatory sales reporting and complaints reporting. For debt management firms there are additional requirements relating to prudential resources and client money.

Further, following authorisation, the FCA will undertake ‘Supervision’ of firms which is based around three pillars of activity: • Pillar 1 – Proactive firm supervision • Pillar 2 – Event-driven, reactive supervision • Pillar 3 – Issues and products supervision (known as ‘thematic’ work) Regulatory compliance can be overwhelming for some firms, but with a clear plan in place, an embedded commitment to treating customer’s fairly and documentary evidence of compliance through systems and controls, firms should be able to operate compliantly and competently within the FCA’s regulatory space.

By Nicola Crump, Signature Compliance

risk and compliance

Can we stop using the C-word?

I hate the word ‘compliance’. Can’t stand it, in fact.

You might find that strange for someone who specialises in supporting Compliance Officers.

Don’t get me wrong, it’s not because I don’t like the work. Five years on, I still love helping our small firm clients. Reducing the burden on COLPs, improving quality, reducing complaints and the risk of PII claims.

It’s the word itself. It irks me. What’s worse is that I feel compelled to use the C-word throughout our own website (jonathonbray.com) and marketing messages, simply because that’s what the search engines recognise and understand. I feel tainted by association with the C-word.

Why do I hate it? ’Compliance’ to me conjures Orwellian images of mindless drones following oppressive rules put in place by a faceless overseer. Secret police in leather trench coats. Covert operatives hiding in the shadows, eliminating those who dare to do things differently.

To me it represents inflexibility. It is finding the reasons in the rules why we cannot do what we want to do. It is ‘the tail wagging the dog'. It is entirely negative.

I usually prefer to talk about ‘Risk Management’ with our clients rather than the C-word. Risk Management is much more about taking ownership of professional duties and embedding them in systems and cultures. It is proactive, and gives firms a greater feeling of freedom.

It is definitely more positive.

But even ‘Risk Management’ sounds a little grey and uninspiring, doesn’t it? We need a new word! Any ideas? Tweet me @Jonathon_Bray Jonathon Bray is a former solicitor and now helps small firms outsource their C-word. He is also a recognised ABS specialist. www.jonathonbray.com

By Jonathan Bray

For me, that’s part of the reason I think that so many solicitors roll their eyes when the regulator (and us consultants) waffle on about the C-word. There is very often no love, no desire to take it as seriously as it should be. It’s something imposed, not internalised.

But the reality, for solicitors at least, should be something much different.

We all know that Outcomes focused regulation is intended to get away from traditional rules. Prescription is (at least in theory) replaced with flexibility. Firms can decide how best to achieve the high level principles and outcomes contained in the ‘rulebook’.

At its heart, OFR is meant to be positive! Yes, there is a trade-off in terms of certainty, but for the first time in a generation, lawyers are free to interpret regulation and make it fit around their own business. To demonstrate and justify how they achieve the principles and outcomes. To innovate and boldly go…

And the 2011 experiment is being extended. To many, OFR was an unfinished and hurried project. The Code of Conduct still contains outcomes that look suspiciously like rules. The Accounts Rules can still trip you up every day for the most minor infringements. As for the rest of the Handbook, it is entirely inaccessible. Nobody has read it.

The SRA is in the process of re-drafting the entire Handbook, reducing it from over 400 pages to a mere 50 pages (hooray!), resulting in a Code of Conduct of just 10 pages (double hooray!).

OFR is here to stay and it’s time we start putting a positive spin on this stuff.

The Bill of Middlesex 27

cyber security

How to ensure your practice management software is truly cloud based.

The market for cloud-based practice management is growing rapidly and so is the number of companies providing this service. If you’ve already decided that the convenience and cost benefits of a cloud-based legal practice management solution are suited to your firm, how do you go about ensuring that you’re purchasing a truly cloud-based product? Here’s what you should look out for.

Hidden Costs Cloud computing services can cost as much as 50% less than traditional software over a period of three years. If you start to notice hidden costs such as installation, configuration, maintenance, and upgrades among your server-based or partially cloud-based software, it may be time to start asking questions. For most cloud-based systems firms are only required to pay a monthly subscription per user.

There are no updates, software, or servers to purchase and migration, customer support, and training is included. In addition, there should be no fixed commitments or contracts, leaving users free to cancel their subscription at any time.

Accessibility The biggest advantage of a truly cloud-based system is freedom. Users should have secure access to their files, cases, and matters from any device with an internet connection. Lawyers should have the freedom to

work from any location — from home, from the office, from court, and even while travelling. When researching legal practice management providers, ensure that vendors provide, at a minimum, this freedom and capability.

Installation Accessible through web browsers, cloud-based practice management platforms require no installation or maintenance of dedicated software and hardware. This allows law firms to remain agile, and seamlessly move their practice to the cloud, — minimising the amount of time and money invested into deployment, maintenance, and training. Additional users can be added to the platform as required, meaning that as your firm expands, the software grows with it. New features and product releases are administered centrally so there is no downtime or intervention required by the user. Ask about the installation turnaround time for your new cloud-based legal practice management software. If it’s anything longer than the couple of days, then it’s probably not an entirely cloud-based product.

Server Location If your legal practice management software provider has mentioned installing hardware in your building, they cannot claim to be a cloudbased solution. In addition to this, ensure that your firm meets all regulatory requirements by checking that all your data is hosted in European data centres. If you choose a provider that has servers outside the EU, you may not be compliant with data protection regulations and your data may be subject to the laws of the country it is being held in.

Security The cloud provides a higher standard of protection for confidential data than most law firms can provide on their own. Most data centres for cloud-based applications have passed a rigorous set of industrystandard auditing requirements ensuring the strictest levels of digital and physical access. Ensure you ask your software provider what third-party data security companies they work with to ensure the safety of your information. Highly credible companies include McAfee, TRUSTe, and Norton.

The benefits of cloud-based practice management platforms are clear and relevant to law firms of all sizes. Firms can now enjoy an array of features that were formerly only accessible to their larger competitors as long as they ensure that the software they are purchasing is truly cloudbased.

28 The Bill of Middlesex

As the world’s leading provider of cloud-based legal practice management software, Clio is flexible enough to cope with the full range of contentious and non-contentious practice areas. If your firm is ambitious and looking to grow, then Clio is the perfect solution for your practice management needs.

For a free trial visit: www.clio.co.uk

cyber security

Cyber Security: Are you Covered

by Your IT Managed Service Provider?

There’s been a sharp increase in news stories from law publications around cyber security. Between Friday afternoon scams, rising reports of data breaches and - dare we say it - major headline news such as Panama, cyber security is rarely out of the media spotlight.

Adding to this is the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO), who regularly highlights in both their blog, website and other communications just how easy and probable it is in today’s digital environment to suffer a cyber breach.

In 2015 such cyber breaches racked up a bill of £34bn to UK companies (before any consideration of the priceless cost of reputational damage). Fifty percent of these breaches were caused by inadvertent human error. The UK was the most targeted country in Europe for attacks and frighteningly 1 in 20 emails sent resulted in a successful breach.

On top of digesting the above mentioned dangers, today’s law firms also have to consider tightening regulation around data, the protection of huge amounts of sensitive information and the impending advance of cyber criminals growing in sophistication.

It’s a lot to take on. Unfortunately though, law firms are a lucrative target - and very much worth the trouble for cyber criminals.

“Doesn’t cyber security fall under my managed service provider’s remit?”

Am I Covered by my Managed Service Provider (MSP)?

The answer is unfortunately, probably not.

Managed Service Providers adhere to, and have a good level of security, but they are not security specialists. Nor should they be; managing complex infrastructure, software, hosting, development, support, updates and all things IT is a different role entirely to cyber security. Cyber security is comprehensive and complex - it needs a specialist.

It’s a bit like marking your own homework.

One cannot be given both the responsibility of directing the movie and being the critic, or cooking the food and judging its quality.

and general business disruption. The costs of a breach range, according to the 2015 Information Security Breaches Survey, from £75k at the lower end for SMEs to over £3m for larger firms. And with regard to the probability of suffering a breach, 90% of large organisations and 74% of SMEs suffered one in 2015.

What to Expect from a Cyber Security Specialist Security specialists take a holistic approach derived from globally tested methodologies and hold best practice security accreditations.

Technology operates as the enabler of cyber security but you need the right governance in place and you need your users, i.e. your employees, to follow the procedures and policies in place too.

The below list aims to highlight some of the differences in the roles of cyber security and IT managed services by showing what a cyber security specialist will deliver for your practice: ● Forensic capabilities - an example of this in action would be to ascertain why an accounts team received a fake email from the MD requesting a transfer of funds or a fake email from your bank asking to provide account credentials ● Regular system tests/penetration tests to stay in line with known vulnerabilities and trends

Cyber Essentials Cyber Essentials is a Government run scheme put in place because 80% of cyber-attacks are preventable. It’s also a great place to start in protecting your practice.

Some salient data points our own forensics team have gathered whilst implementing Cyber Essentials into law practices in the last 12 months include the following: ● On average Law firms tend to fail 40% of basic cyber security controls ● Out of the basic security control failures we found 55% were under the direct remit of the Managed Service Provider.

Conclusion You are probably not protected from breaches through your MSP and ignorance is no longer bliss - you will be scrutinised should you suffer a breach not only by the regulator, but by your clients.

Not only are you not probably covered by your MSP, indemnity insurance rarely covers cyber breaches either as it is designed for third party protection and in the case of a data breach, the third party may have no idea their data has been breached in order to warrant a claim.

Risk management and a combined approach is our primary advice here.

● Advice on processes, policies and accreditations needed to support protective technology (technology is 1/3 of the cyber solution) ●Training to raise the risk awareness of your support staff and partners ● Monthly and quarterly reporting of traffic going in and out of your IT network ● Alerts if anyone attempts to steal data or other digital assets

ThinkMarble ThinkMarble are cyber security specialists for the legal sector. We deliver enterprise class cyber security at an affordable price.

The Consequences of Suffering a Breach

● Security planning ● Crisis management

You can identify potential threats to your practice and whether you are covered by your IT provider/department with our free, no obligation cyber assessment.

If you suffer a security breach you’ll potentially have to pay a fine to the ICO (In 2014 173 law firms were investigated) in addition to costs associated with administration, loss in revenue

● 24/7/365 Rapid-response service

https://www.thinkmarble.co.uk/.

By Andy Miles, CEO of ThinkMarble

The Bill of Middlesex 29

legacies

Canine Care Card Some dog owners worry what might happen to their dog if they were to pass away first, leaving their beloved fourlegged friend without an owner. Thankfully, Dogs Trust, the UK’s largest dog welfare charity, offers the Canine Care Card, a special free service that aims to give owners peace of mind, knowing that the charity will look after their dog if the worst should happen. Not only does this offer reassurance to dog owners, it also helps to ease the minds of friends and family during what is already a distressing time.

Dogs Trust has taken in a whole host of dogs across its 20 rehoming centres in the UK as part of the Canine Care Card scheme and helped them settle into new homes. Two of these dogs were duo Telia and Freddie who arrived at Dogs Trust Darlington aged eightyears-old after their owner had sadly passed away. The loveable pair were firm favourites with staff and volunteers, both enjoying long walks and playing in the water whenever they got a chance.

Telia had been diagnosed with arthritis prior to her arrival at Dogs Trust and was able to get all the care she needed while she awaited her forever home. Dogs Trust never puts down a healthy dog, and works hard to match every dog with a responsible, loving home.

Happily, Telia and Freddie were soon settling in with a loving new family after being cared for at Dogs Trust Darlington.

30 The Bill of Middlesex

Adrian Burder, Dogs Trust CEO says, “Thanks to Dogs Trust’s Canine Card Card scheme, dogs in need of a new home are given a lifeline, meaning that Telia, Freddie and many dogs like them are able to get a second chance at happiness and bring joy to a new family. If you decide to become a Canine Care Card holder, we will issue you with a wallet-sized card. It acts in a similar way to an organ donor card and notifies people of your wishes for your dogs, should anything happen to you. Dogs Trust also strongly recommends that you mention the care of your dog in your Will. That way, there can be no confusion about your wishes.”

conveyancing

A history of innovation in specialisation The Council for Licensed Conveyancers was established in 1985 to foster competition and innovation in the conveyancing market. 30 years on we are still helping legal businesses thrive by finding new ways to meet changing customer expectation.

Our approach is to support firms to achieve compliance and to accommodate different ways of working where we can. Our experience as a specialist regulator of conveyancing and probate allows us to tailor our regulation to those areas of property law.

CLC regulated firms account for 25% of the transactions carried out by the top 100 conveyancing firms by volume. But there are thriving firms of all sizes and types regulated by the CLC.

Thriving conveyancing businesses…

There has been no need for an accreditation scheme for CLCregulated firms or lawyers. Specialisation and the scale of firms as well as the effectiveness of regulation have meant that such schemes are unnecessary.

This history, approach and experience may explain why CLC regulated firms have grown to enjoy a market share of transactions that is far greater than their numbers would suggest.

CLC firms make up just 4.4% of Land Registry account customers but generate more than 10% of transactions by value. The average number of transactions for value in September 2015 was 50 for CLC firms and 20 for all others.

EDUCATING AND REGULATING SPECIALIST LAWYERS PROTECTING THE CONSUMER SUPPORTING INNOVATION, COMPETITION AND GROWTH

…with no need for additional accreditation

Find out more To find out more about qualifying as a CLC lawyer or how to set up your conveyancing or probate practice under CLC regulation, visit our website www.clc-uk.org or call us on 020 7250 8465.

IT’S TIME TO THINK ABOUT THAT MOVE

To find out more about how your practice could benefit from transferring to the CLC, contact us on the details below.

www.clc-uk.org/Changing-Regulators or call 020 7250 8465 The Bill of Middlesex 31

conveyancing

The updated residential CON29DW and CommercialDW Drainage and Water Enquiries are now available to all Thames Water Property Searches’ customers We are delighted to announce that customers now have full access to the updated residential CON29DW and CommercialDW Drainage and Water Enquiries.

We are delighted to announce that customers now have full access to the updated residential CON29DW and CommercialDW Drainage and Water Enquiries.

As a result of changes in legislation, we have worked in consultation with The Law Society to implement these vital modifications, which will ensure that the Enquiries provide conveyancers with the most up-to-date information available when advising their clients on the impact of water and wastewater networks in relation to property purchases.

The key changes to both Enquiries – which went live on May 9th 2016 – include: • Inclusion of details on private pumping stations • Impact of sustainable drainage systems (SUDs) on newly adopted sewerage networks • Removal of water quality information as this is not property specific; however this information will still be available on the TWPS website • Provision of water hardness information.

It is intended that all official CON29DW suppliers will be compliant by 4th July 2016.

We are an official supplier of CON29DW and – as a member of The Drainage and Water Searches Network (DWSN) – have 16 years’ experience delivering residential and commercial drainage Enquiries to our national customer base.

We are also one of the UK’s leading providers of property searches in the UK, offering an extensive range of searches throughout England and Wales all under one roof.

Conducting multiple searches with us is a transparent and straightforward process. Our easy-to-use online dashboard highlights searches relevant to each property and keeps customers fully informed on those all-important expected delivery times.

Complex cases do arise so our knowledgeable customer service team is always on hand to help and advise.

To discuss these amendments in detail or to discuss our comprehensive range of services, please call: 0845 070 9148 or visit: www.thameswater-propertysearches.co.uk

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

MAKE RESIDENTIAL CONVEYANCING PROFITABLE.

The orderly transfer of the ownership of land is one of the cornerstones of our society. For most people, purchasing a home is the largest investment they will make in their lives. Due to the lack of familiarity with the process and the real and perceived risks, buyers rely on their trusted solicitor to represent them.

However, as conveyancing has commoditised the conveyancer needs to do more work for less money and as a result many small law firms are surrendering conveyancing work to conveyancing ‘shops’. This needn’t be the case.

Communicate efficiently with your client; With fixed fee work, unnecessary phone calls eat into your profit margins, avoid concerned calls by keeping your client well informed. A good system allows you to:

Through the introduction of great technology you can make residential conveyancing profitable. A sophisticated case management software system will allow your firm to:

• Locate matter correspondence in an instant and with ease; • Integrate your email with your case management software allowing you to send and receive emails directly from the matter; • Send your client a ‘pack’ of documents, create a composite pdf of those documents, in the correct order, so that it is easy for your client to understand.

Access a library of ‘automated’ and up to date conveyancing legal forms and precedents; Also allowing you to incorporate your own correspondence into the software so that you and your staff produce every document, for every matter, in the same way. This standardisation will bring quality and efficiency.

Benefit from integrated searching; Order all your searches and have results returned directly to and from the matter and the cost of the search debited against the matter ledger, turn transactions around faster; provide your clients with detailed costs relating to the searches and dramatically reduce the cost of the administrative work.

Ordering all your property searches including the Land Registry, AP1's and SDLT from one provider will completely automate the conveyancing process.

Market your conveyancing services; The market is intensely competitive. Most people do their research online before making a purchasing decision, even if they have received a recommendation. If you don’t have a great website that clearly sets out the services you offer and the value that your firm will add to the process, then you are losing work to the firms that do.

In conclusion, most buyers prefer to deal with their local trusted lawyer for their conveyancing needs. As a small law firm owner profitability comes with building your conveyancing practice and the best way to do this is through utilising the best technology available.

Learn more about building a healthy conveyancing practice. Download your free whitepaper from https://www.leap.co.uk/whitepapers/ today.

By Peter Beaverstock, CEO LEAP UK

32 The Bill of Middlesex

conveyancing

Why conveyancers must employ enjoyable technology Recently I found a fascinating book full of very interesting statistics. Did you know that every day the amount of data created grows by 2.5 quintillion bytes? That’s 18 zero’s! Or did you know that less than 0.5% of all available data is ever analysed and used? Referring to information of this magnitude the buzzword ‘big data’ is often used, which is simply a term to describe structured and unstructured data. However, I’m more interested in how this growth of data affects law firms.

According to the book ‘The Human Face of Big Data’, the average person now processes more data in a single day than they did throughout a whole lifetime in the Middle Ages. The majority of this data is, of course, driven by the internet and the sharing of information and creation of content associated with it. So, with the sheer volume of data and amount of stimuli we process day-to-day, what impact does this have on our lives?

On a daily basis employees, colleagues and peers are consuming incredible amounts of information in both personal and professional capacities, between which, the lines are often blurred. So while we’re taking time to process and analyse the multitude of data during our working day, it’s leaving us with less time to manage operational or administrative tasks.

Working in the conveyancing sector, there is a huge input and output of information generated throughout the process. All this resulting information then needs to be organised,

analysed and stored in a way that is easy to access. That’s not easy when we’re constantly processing and filtering data, so choosing a system that can help do this efficiently is imperative. Furthermore, as client expectations continue to increase, so too does the demand for a faster and more economical service, placing additional pressure upon the conveyancer.

Nowadays we are used to technology in our personal lives that help us easily organise, analyse, store and access information. This begs the question, ‘why can’t the clever technology that I use in my personal life, be available in my work life?’, and as a busy legal professional, I hope this resonates with you.

Commonly raised data challenges in the conveyancing industry include filing matters, reconciling disbursements, and rekeying information for SDLT submissions or AP1 transfers. Now, the good news is that while the issues around the volume and management of

information are present, there is simple, intuitive technology built to evolve how conveyancers manage their matters in the most efficient way possible. Choosing to use these systems means less logins and passwords to remember, eliminates the issue of lost disbursements, rekeying errors, and houses all information related to your matters in a central system, providing one source of truth. Opting for the right technology for your firm gives time back to you and your staff, creates efficiencies and minimises risk - why would you work any other way?

By making the change to simple, enjoyable technology, you can change the way you work, store and analyse information related to your matters, and thus, take the headache out of the conveyancing process.

By Scott Bozinis, CEO InfoTrack

Legal Indemnity Title Insurance

Take a break...

Seeing as issuing Legal Indemnity Title Insurance with GCS is so easy, why not take a break...

Find out what our little bear Thomas has been up to at: www.gcs-title.co.uk/charity

Call 01435 868050 to speak to an underwriter today or email underwriters@gcs-title.co.uk

www.gcs-title.co.uk 01435 868050 underwriters@gcs-title.co.uk Guaranteed Conveyancing Solutions Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. Registered in England and Wales No. 3623950

Legal Indemnity Insurance

The Bill of Middlesex 33

conveyancing

The Client-focused conveyancing case management system that keeps everyone InTouch.

In 2012, we bought our first house. In total we viewed 44 different houses.

We did what we thought was correct. We went to viewings, we fell in love with a house, we put an offer in, Job done, or so we thought... Wrong!

The first offer fell through. We tried again, we fell in love with another house. We put another offer in, it got accepted, we were going to be home owners and then… …it fell through, leaving us confused and disappointed.

We persevered and finally, our third offer on a different house got accepted. We were ecstatic.

Our experience of the conveyancing process over the next few months, was an emotional rollercoaster. We had to quickly understand a myriad of complexity – searches, house insurance, drawing up a will, SDLT and so on.

What started out as an exciting adventure had now turned into a mess of complications and confusion.

The crux of the problem was, we had no knowledge or understanding of the process. We often felt frustrated by not knowing what was happening.

I’m sure that we annoyed the hell out of the estate agent and conveyancer. We were always ringing them asking – “what’s happening”, “when can we move in”, “this costs what?!”

The whole process made us think that we couldn’t be the only buyers that felt this way when buying a house. And so we started to wonder, what could we do about it?

Seamless integration Another benefit of InTouch is that it integrates seamlessly with general practice management systems, accounts packages, search providers, and also Microsoft Word & Outlook. We focus purely on supporting the conveyancing process, thus making sure we can provide the best conveyancing case management system possible.

Training and Support Switching to InTouch is straightforward and easy. Firstly, we offer training that will get all your staff using InTouch in easy, simple steps.

Customers are not tied into minimum contracts or setup fees.

The InTouch model is a simple ‘pay per case’ one, that ensures we only make money if we provide you a good service. Check out www.intouchapp.co.uk for details of the pricing.

You will be in good company with InTouch InTouch is used by regional and high street firms; from solicitors like

Murray Hills and Bird & Co, to Licensed conveyancing firms like PDR Property Lawyers and Michelle O’Shea & Co. We even have a hybrid agency/solicitors taking advantage of InTouch.

InTouch is born

Efficiency at the heart of everything

The result was InTouch. Our first solution went live January 2014. In the two and bit years since then we have continually improved the software - thanks to feedback from conveyancers & agents.

InTouch is above all easy to use and designed to help you run a more efficient practice. Our aim is to improve the conveyancing process, and we think that technology is a key part of the service.

More and more buyers & sellers are starting to expect easy and clear technology to help them understand what has to happen and what they can do to help the process.

How InTouch can help you Conveyancers are able to upload and send all their letters and email through InTouch. The powerful reports generated by InTouch enable practices to understand how their business is running.

Quotation calculator’s are included free of charge to help conveyancers draw in new clients out-of-hours and also via their introducers.

Don’t get left behind Don’t let your clients feel like we did when bought our first home.

Keep them in the loop, keep them excited, show them you care!

Keep them InTouch.

Data Security

It’s time to get InTouch – 0115 888 11 55

InTouch inside highly secure, specialised Microsoft Azure Data centres, adhering to UK auditing standards. All data and documents are encrypted, and we continually improve our security standards as the industry changes. We actually document our security practices on our website, with the aim of educating lawyers on best practice techniques, raising the standard of security within the conveyancing community.

www.intouchapp.co.uk

Cloud based technology You can access InTouch from anywhere– you can even sit on the beach and keep your clients up to date. In fact, one house buyer recently left a review saying he was able to enjoy his holiday in New Zealand because he received updates through the InTouch portal telling him how his house was progressing.

34 The Bill of Middlesex

Still preffe er to use pen and paper to self--issue a legal indemnities policy?

…then this pack is the key solution ffo or you!

Premiums start from: Residential Search Indemnity

£14

Residential Building Regulations Indemnity

£17

Residential Chancel Repair Liability Indemnity

£19

Residential Planning and Building Regulations Indemnity £76

To o order your

FREE PA ACK

Simple, effectivee and ready-to o-hand !

Our Legal Indemnities Residential Self-Issue Policy Pack off ffe ers some of the most competitive premiums on the market. Covering all common conveyancing risks, it enables you to issue policies rather than cover notes.

Call 020 72 7 56 3847

Unable to meet our self-issue criteria or need cover for new builds, development or commercial risks?

Our bespoke underwriting team have the expertise to assist you, please email enquiries@crminsurance.co.uk Premiums correct at date of publication. Conveyancing Risk Management Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority.

Registered No. 04568951. Registered Office: 150 Aldersgate Street, London EC1A 4AB.

Speed up p the Searching Process Integrated searching & billing through your case managem ment sofftt ware.

Find out more by visiting

leap p.co co o.uk/con uk/conveyancing g

0843 713 0135 | info@leap.co.uk | w www.leap.co.uk