The Bill of Middlesex Autumn 2020

BillOFMiddlesex

XXXXXXXXXXXX

THE

THE OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE MIDDLESEX LAW SOCIETY | AUTUMN 2020

Change ahead ■ PII renewals ■ Working from home ■ Local professional news ■ Covid – ups and downs

Middlesex Law Society 1 | The Bill of Middlesex

XXXXXXXXXXXX

Pick ‘n’ mix Quill’s software & services legal accounts software | practice & document management software smartphone apps | form packs | court bundling | outsourced cashiering outsourced typing | outsourced payroll | plus much much more!



0161 236 2910

2 | The Bill of Middlesex



info@quill.co.uk

www.quill.co.uk/picknmix

PUBLISHER Benham Publishing Aintree Building, Aintree Way, Aintree Business Park, Liverpool L9 5AQ Tel: 0151 236 4141 Fax: 0151 236 0440 Email: admin@benhampublishing.com Web: www.benhampublishing.com ACCOUNTS DIRECTOR Joanne Casey

Contents 05 Autumn Review

11

SALES DIRECTOR Karen Hall

06 Officers

STUDIO MANAGER Lee Finney MEDIA No. 1737 EDITORIAL COMMITTEE Miles Sriharan Maralyn Hutchinson Professor Malcolm Davies Zulfiqar Ali Meerza PUBLISHED AUTUMN 2020 © The Middlesex Law Society Benham Publishing Ltd.

07 Editor’s Notes 08 News

13

11 47% of marketing

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

businesses have not trained employees against cyber threats

13 Protecting the legal

advice sector in 2020

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 members 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.

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

COVER INFORMATION Photo by Pierre Blaché from Pexels.

15 Mediation in the 15

wake of Coronavirus – Court Guidance & Cabinet Directives

17 Disputed Will claims at an all time high

22 Wellbeing xtended Indemnity 17 24 EPeriod

Our new website is now

www.middlesexlawsociety.org.uk The Bill of Middlesex | 3

XXXXXXXXXXXX

Prepare, send, and sign documents— without ever leaving Clio.

Learn more about e-Signatures and document management with Clio—the UK’s case management leader.

Visit clio.com/uk or call +44-800-433-2546.

4 | The Bill of Middlesex

© The Law Society, Chancery Lane, London by The wub, Wikimedia Commons. CC BY-SA 4.0.

INTRODUCTION

Autumn Review AUTUMN 2020

B

y the time you read this, The Law Society will have held its 157th AGM and David Greene will have been installed as the new president in succession to Simon Davis who has completed his 15 month marathon, much of it expectedly within the confines of his own home as he steered himself through the Covid-19 virus and the Law Society through the first period of the pandemic.

During that period the society has enhanced its reputation as it responded fast to both member needs and government demands. It promoted changes to legislation and improvements to relief schemes whilst liaising with the leaders of various legal institutions to ensure safety in the courts and orderly rescheduling of ordinary business.

Whilst the shift of the AGM from July to October was not part of the original plan, transforming the Society to working online has been and that shift is likely to become part of the new normal as it is enabling easier and more frequent engagement with members although for technical committees the value of face to face meeting is missed.

The long-standing governance reforms have been continuing. The setting up of a single Board was the first steps and establishment of the committees and working groups beneath it was the second. It is now proposed at the AGM to adjust council with a rebalancing to a total of 95 seats. This proposal reduces the number of geographical constituencies from 61 to 46 and increases representation for specific work sector and characteristic seats. Specialist seats such as business and intellectual property are be introduced, and new seats for 6-12 PQE solicitors and increased seats for women and junior lawyers.

The reduction in geographic seats has been opposed

by Council members who believe that any elected representative will take account of all interests and may well have a specialism of their own in any event but will in future they will be asked to stretch over larger areas and populations of member.

Our own constituency will following discussion be largely unchanged as it will be defined by post codes rather than London Borough boundaries and slightly enlarged in the North, NW and W post codes.

Separately there is another motion at the AGM spearheaded by the junior lawyers division to curtail the tenure of council members to 12 years. This was defeated in Council but is being brought to the AGM. It is noteworthy that the council has 38 out of 97 seats currently held by solicitors elected since 2017 and with less than four years’ experience, whilst just 22 members with more than 12 years service on council will remain after this year’s retirements.

It is perhaps opportune to let members know that we will be looking for a new Law Society council member from 2022 when the current representative will be standing down. Anyone who is interested to know what the role involves and what can be achieved for the profession is encouraged to make contact.

Whilst putting out that appeal. We would also again call on members to offer themselves or others they know to assist our society. We do welcome new faces to help write and give presentations or help edit our magazine.

We have many willing sponsors and members who would gladly who wish to attend events especially as they are now available online but need more help in organising. We are also looking for an experienced administrator who will arrange events, keep in touch with members and update our web site.

In a new significant and change of direction the LSB is constructing a new business plan and this includes to address the market in unregulated services. They have enlisted a public panel rather than rely on the advice of the Consumer panel although that body continues. ■

The Bill of Middlesex | 5

OFFICERS

OFFICERS FOR 2019/20

President Elect MILES SRIHARAN Sriharans Solicitors 223 The Broadway, Southall UB1 1ND 020 8843 9974. DX 119583 Southall 3 Email: miles.sriharan@sriharanssolicitors.co.uk Vice President MILES SRIHARAN Sriharans Solicitors 223 The Broadway, Southall UB1 1ND 020 8843 9974. DX 119583 Southall 3 Email: miles.sriharan@sriharanssolicitors.co.uk Honorary Secretary MAURICE GUYER Vickers & Co. 183 Uxbridge Road, Ealing W13 9AA 020 8579 2559. DX 5104 Ealing Email: mguyer@vickers-solicitors.co.uk Honorary Treasurer ANANDAKRISHNAN S. NAIR Sriharans Solicitors 223 The Broadway, Southall UB1 1ND 020 8843 9974. DX 119583 Southall 3 Email: anandakrishnans.81@gmail.com COUNCIL MEMBER FOR THE MIDDLESEX AREA Central & South Middlesex Michael Garson Kagan Moss 22 The Causeway, Teddington TW11 0HF 020 8977 6633. DX 35250 Teddington Email: michael.garson@kaganmoss.co.uk

COMMITTEE MEMBERS

PAST PRESIDENTS

Past President ARIYA SRIHARAN Sriharans Solicitors 223 The Broadway, Southall UB1 1ND 020 8843 9974. DX 119583 Southall 3 Email: info@sriharanssolicitors.co.uk

R Garrod, J A S Nicholls, R C Politeyan, J Aylett, K Goodacre, H J B Cockshutt, W Gillham, L Lane Heardman, D Grove, L A Darke, C Beety, L E Vickers, H Hodge, E G B Taylor, A A M Wheatley, A H Kurtz, M J S Doran, H B Matthissen, G Parkinson, HHJ R D Connor, A Bates, J J Copeman-Hill, D B Kennett-Brown, S B Hammett, F A Shakespear, HHJ P E Copley, A M Harvey, H R Hodge, G R Stephenson, B S Regler, W J C Berry, AS Atchison, L M Oliver, S W Booth, D D P Debidin, R E J Hansom, E H Lock, A Taylor, N Desor, M Hutchinson, M Guyer, R S Drepaul, A Sriharan, M Fernandes, A Darlington, S Chhokar, M Crowley, M Davies, S Hobbs, R Sriharan, S Scott Hunt, D Webb, G Kharaud, A Sriharan, A Tevie

Professor Malcolm Davies Retired Professor University of West London Law School c/o Oxford and Cambridge Club 71 Pall Mall, SW1 5HD 020 7930 5151 Email: profmjd1@gmail.com Aneeqa Ali Lecturer in Law/ Legal Practice University of West London St Mary’s Road, Ealing W5 5RF 020 8231 2403 Email: aneeqa.ali@uwl.ac.uk Maralyn Hutchinson Kagan Moss 22 The Causeway, Teddington, Middlesex TW11 0HF 020 8977 6633. DX 35250 Teddington Email: maralyn.hutchinson@kaganmoss.co.uk Renuka Sriharan Sriharans 223 The Broadway, Southall UB1 1ND 020 8843 9974. DX 119583 Southall 3 Email: info@sriharanssolicitors.co.uk

PARLIAMENTARY LIAISON Michael Garson

Liz Pugh Head of the Legal Practice Course University of West London St Mary's Road, Ealing W5 5RF 020 8231 2018 Email: liz.pugh@uwl.ac.uk Zulfiqar Ali Meerza Serious Fraud Office (SFO) 2-4 Cockspur Street, London SW17 5BS 020 7084 4890 Email: zulfiqar.meerza@sfo.gov.uk Zahra Asghar Asghar & Co 112-114 The Broadway, Southall UB1 1QT 020 8843 0010. DX 119576 Email: zasghar@asgharandco.com Caroline Golden Goldens Solicitors 343 Rayners Lane, Pinner HA5 5EN 020 8429 8282. DX 48006 Rayners Lane Email: c.golden@goldenslaw.com

www.middlesexlawsociety.org.uk 6 | The Bill of Middlesex

INTRODUCTION

Editor’s Notes G

reetings from the Editor’s office. The sunshine is over, those lovely walks along the towpath ending with a late drink in a pub are a memory but the ever-present factor in all our lives remains – COVID-19.

Much as we may try to blank it out or operate round it and adapt our living and working methods, it is evolving at will, and those of us without crystal balls are doing well to be able to maintain survival mode. Here at the Bill, we are no different. We have struggled to capture copy for this edition as all things Covid are offered up as the reason for lack of time and ability to produce materials for our readers. It is true that whilst we try to perfect the art of working from home, or alternating between the office and home, operating within the Corona context is proving very testing. Everything seems to take longer, involve more processes and yet the demands on us are no different and some say more relentless than before.

Middlesex members have fed back to us about their difficulties in adapting to the processing of ongoing business but others have demonstrated a willingness to look beyond the current issues and to examine how changes to working practices could be beneficial with a new flexibility and new collaboration techniques. Many are taking the opportunity to work off site and to change and innovate. What was seen as hindering productivity may now be viewed as a positive. The cost of new technology may well be less than the investment in physical

office space. However, there is always the issue of balance of supervision of home working and assessment of the quality of output with the compliance with professional standards and requirements.

PII Insurers who are considering renewal applications certainly have those matters front and centre in their assessments of risk and anecdotally there have been some eye watering renewal premiums quoted, so when our Council Member Michael Garson held two Zoom meetings recently for our members to explore their experience and issues around the renewal of PII, these were very timely and well received. Again, the lack of a model is hampering firms from making a reasoned and educated estimate of likely business and income.

We hope you enjoy this edition of the Bill of Middlesex and we really want your feedback on any aspect, so do email us or your Council Member with your ideas for speakers, topics for future events or meetings, problems, issues, information about changes in your firm and matters of concern you would like raised in Council or with our local MPs. I look forward to hearing from you and thank you in advance for your support.

With best wishes in these difficult times. ■

Maralyn Hutchinson Acting Editor Middlesex Law Society

Baroness Hale of Richmond to give English-Speaking Union’s Evelyn Wrench Lecture Getting the Message Across: Communication and Transparency in the UK Supreme Court. Tuesday 10 November, 7.30pm GMT via Zoom

O

n Tuesday, 10 November at 7.30pm, Baroness Hale of Richmond will give the English-Speaking Union Evelyn Wrench Lecture 2020.

Lady Hale was the first female Law Lord in the UK Parliament, the first woman to serve in the Supreme Court, and its first female President. A staunch believer in equality (her motto is Omnia Feminae Aequissimae – ‘women are equal to everything’), she has done much to promote the rights of women, children, and those with reduced mental capacity in a legal career stretching back to 1966 when she began teaching law at Manchester University. Last September, she became a household name when she delivered the Supreme Court’s verdict that the Prime Minister’s decision to prorogue parliament was unlawful. She has more recently made waves with her statements that, in regard to the Covid emergency laws, parliament ‘surrendered control to the government at a crucial time’. Lady Hale, who retired in January, has been dubbed the ‘Beyonce of the law’ due to her popularity among young lawyers and students.

Baroness Hale

Professor James Raven, Chair of the English-Speaking Union, says: ‘We live in a more and more polarised society in which public and social media debate is increasingly crude and offers a harmful example to young people. The ESU leads in showing how we can best agree to disagree and how to communicate with effectiveness and grace. Court proceedings are, or should be, the paradigm of settling arguments in a civil manner and the Supreme Court hears cases of the greatest public and constitutional importance affecting the whole population, so we are honoured to have Lady Hale as our guest.’

The lecture will be hosted on Zoom, and there will be time for questions afterwards. Tickets cost £35 can be booked online at www.wrenchlecture2020.eventbrite.co.uk or by calling 020 7529 1567.

Members of the press wishing to attend should email rachel.fernandes@esu.org. ■ The Bill of Middlesex | 7

NEWS

Moore Barlow launches New Top 100 firm represents regional powerhouse with unique specialisms and significant strength in private client, property and personal injury.

N

ew top 100 UK law firm Moore Barlow has launched, resulting from the successful merger between Moore Blatch and Barlow Robbins. The combination establishes a new regional powerhouse firm with a significant geographic footprint across the South East, serving clients across the UK and internationally.

In terms of clients, Moore Barlow is focused primarily on meeting the needs of owners and leaders of fast-moving organisations and businesses, private individuals and families, and people whose lives have been affected by serious accidents or negligence. Each of these groups require relationship-oriented legal advisors who are dedicated to helping them find the best path for their circumstances, be that exciting new business opportunities or complex and challenging situations – a focus and approach which sets Moore Barlow apart in the marketplace.

The firm boasts some of the largest and most comprehensive teams of legal advisors in areas such as private client, personal injury, clinical negligence and property. In addition, Moore Barlow has a number of renowned specialisms which include Charities & Not-for-Profits, Agriculture & Rural Affairs, Land Development, and its nationally ranked Independent Schools practice.

Moore Barlow has a combined turnover of almost £40 million,

Ed Whittington (Managing Partner) & Helen Goatley (Chairman) putting it well within the roster of the UK’s top 100 law firms. The firm comprises 70 partners, 272 lawyers and legal professionals, and a total staff of nearly 500 across six UK offices (Guildford, London, Lymington, Richmond, Southampton, and Woking).

Ed Whittington, Managing Partner of Moore Barlow, said: “Bringing together two terrific firms into an even greater, more ambitious and more comprehensive offering for our clients and communities has been an exciting journey, despite the challenging times in which we are all operating. Moore Barlow is one of very few firms with the breadth, depth and resources to meet all the needs of our core client groups, and we firmly believe that our people-led approach will set us apart. We have purposefully created a meaningful governance structure and given many of our partners and employees important parts to play in driving the future of our firm.” ■

Moore Barlow. Even more together…

In May 2020, Barlow Robbins and Moore Blatch joined forces to become Moore Barlow. Bringing together the legacy of our past, but looking to the future — our new law firm offers you more. More expertise & knowledge.

More solutions & outcomes. More locations & coverage. Visit moorebarlow.com for further information.

Guildford London Lymington Richmond Southampton Woking

8 | The Bill of Middlesex

NEWS

Amanda Hamilton

Jane Robson

NALP

the National Association of Licensed Paralegals, has appointed Chantal Cooke to its Board of Directors.

Chantal Cooke

NALP announces appointment of new Non-Executive Director to its Board

Cooke joins CEO Amanda Hamilton and Director of Compliance & Regulation, Jane Robson.

Chantal Cooke is an award-winning journalist, co-founder of PASSION for the PLANET radio, and CEO of boutique PR company, Panpathic Communications.

Cooke already sits on NALP’s Governing Board, a position she has held for the last two years. She will retain this alongside her new role on the Board of Directors.

“We’ve worked with Chantal for three years in her capacity as our PR agent and have been really impressed with her skills, knowledge and work ethic. We soon found ourselves turning to her to ask her opinion on issues outside her direct PR remit as we valued her practical, down-to-earth approach to challenges.

So, it made perfect sense to ask her to join our Board in an official capacity.” Said Amanda Hamilton, CEO of NALP. “I’ve loved working with Amanda, Jane and the NALP team over the last few years and have enjoyed making a contribution to the wider business. It is clear that paralegals, and the profession as a whole, deserves greater recognition, and I hope I can contribute to making that a reality.” said Chantal Cooke.

In the coming months, NALP will continue to work to increase awareness of the paralegal profession, both within the legal sector and to consumers and businesses who may need legal support, while also supporting its members to further their legal careers and ensuring affordable legal help is available to everyone.

NALP is also committed to developing and improving relationships with its counterparts in the statutory regulated legal sector and ensuring that as a voluntary regulatory body for the currently unregulated paralegal sector, it is ready for the challenges facing the whole sector, throughout the pandemic and beyond.

NALP, the National Association of Licensed Paralegals (NALP), is a non-profit Membership Body and the only Paralegal body that is recognised as an awarding organisation by Ofqual (the regulator of qualifications in England). Through its Centres, accredited recognised professional paralegal qualifications are offered for a career as a paralegal professional. www.nationalparalegals.co.uk. ■

The Bill of Middlesex | 9

ARTICLE

Home Office under fire for 120% surge in data loss incidents

T

he Home Office has recorded a 120 per cent surge in data loss incidents over the two most recent financial years, with 1,895 individual incidents in 2018-19, rising to 4,204 incidents in the most recent financial year, 2019-20.

The data, which was extrapolated from the Home Office’s Annual Report and Accounts 2019-20 and compiled by a cyber security Parliament Street think tank, also included a comprehensive breakdown of the figures.

It revealed that the most common incident was loss of inadequately protected electronic equipment, devices or paper documents from outside secured government premises. 2,404 incidents of this nature were recorded in 2019-20 compared to just 702 the year before – a 242 per cent increase.

A further 946 incidents of lost electronic equipment or documents from secured government premises was also recorded in 201920, up from 145 in 2018/19 – a 552 per cent increase.

Of the 4,204 total incidents in 2019-2020, 25 were flagged as

being particularly severe, and fell within the criteria for notifying the Information Commissioner’s Office. This figure is down from the 35 severe incidents recorded from the year before.

The most common reason for these severe incidents is due to ‘unauthorised disclosure’ – 11 of 25 incidents in 2019-20 were due to this reason, as well as 26 out of 35 from the year prior.

Andy Harcup, VP Sales, Absolute Software comments: “It’s vital that key government departments like The Home Office take data security seriously. These figures indicate a myriad of losses of critical devices and data, some of which was so serious it had to reported to the regulator.”

“It’s not uncommon for a missing file or laptop to fall into the wrong hands, giving hackers and cyber criminals access to critical public data. Key to tackling this problem is the implementation of sophisticated and robust end-point security, providing IT professionals within the department with full visibility and control over their device: meaning they can freeze or access a laptop, file or device, even if it lands in the wrong hands.” ■

Lords Committee questions two-month extension to remand periods

T

he Lords Secondary Legislation Committee has this week published a report expressing concerns about new regulations extending by eight weeks the maximum time defendants in criminal cases can be held on remand while awaiting trial. They ask the Ministry of Justice what other measures are being used to tackle the backlog of criminal trials that have built up as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

to the difficulties that prisons are facing during the pandemic.

Extending remand can have extremely detrimental effects on the mental health of the individual and on the welfare of their families, especially where the prisoner is a parent or has dependants, every effort should be made to reduce pre-trial detention as soon as possible. The House may therefore wish to ask the Minister what other measures are being taken to address the backlog of trials.”

The Prosecution of Offences (Custody Time Limits) (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 extend the maximum remand period of a defendant awaiting jury trial in the Crown Court by 56 days (eight weeks) to allow the courts to manage the delays due to COVID-19.

Lord Hodgson, Chair of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee said:

The Regulations will come into effect on 28 September and are effective until 28 June 2021 and mean that any defendant awaiting trial in a Crown Court will have their Custody Time Limits, currently set at 182 days, extended to a maximum of 238 days (about eight months).

For those defendants remanded in custody for the first time after the commencement of the Regulations but before their expiry, the longer remand periods will continue to apply even after these Regulations are no longer in force.

The Committee's report says while it understands that the COVID-19 pandemic has delayed court hearings while social distancing and infection prevention measures were put in place, a backlog in court hearings existed before the outbreak of the pandemic. The Committee expresses concern that this extension to the Custody Time Limit appears to be a way of working round the issue rather than solving the problem. The report says: “The backlog that necessitates this extension of remand periods delays justice for both the defendant and the victim and may add 10 | The Bill of Middlesex

“When we discussed this issue, the Committee expressed serious concerns about how extended remand periods may have significant detrimental effects on defendants and their families, especially in cases involving female single-parent families. The lack of data on the numbers of defendants released on bail was also a cause for concern.”

“Depriving anyone of their liberty before they have been convicted of a crime is one of the most serious steps the state can take and we must ensure periods of pre-trial incarceration are not extended any longer than necessary.”

“Any backlog in court hearings delays justice for both the defendant and the victim. While we acknowledge that defendants are remanded in custody due to factors including the nature and seriousness of the offence with which they are charged, and the likelihood of committing further offences if released on bail, we would wish to ask the Minister what other measures are being taken to address this backlog.”

“We have made our report to the House ahead of the period during which Members are able to object to the Regulations.

That period ends on 16 October.” ■

SPOTLIGHT ON

47% of marketing businesses have not trained employees against cyber threats

C

yber security remains one of the most challenging issues for business owners – large and small. And it seems data breaches cost UK enterprises an average of $3.88million per breach – according to IBM. And considering much of the global workforce is now remote, it has never been more important for employees to be cyber aware.

Specops Software recently found that Clickjacking is the most common form of hacking in education at 66%. Whilst Phishing was extremely prevalent among other key industries at 71%.

This prompted Specops Software to investigate the industries without sufficient cyber security training by surveying 1,342 businesses across 11 sectors across the UK. Results Business Sector

% of businesses that have not sufficiently trained employees against cyber threats

Travel and Hospitality

84%

Education and Training

69%

Customer Service

56%

Marketing, Advertising and PR

47%

Medical and Health

42%

Creative Arts and Design

37%

Computer and IT

30%

Charity and Voluntary Work

29%

Accountancy, Banking and Finance

23%

Recruitment and HR

19%

Legal Services

16%

sufficiently against cyber threats – a worrying statistic as breaches compromise student and staff safety. In fact, cyber attacks have been increasing year-on-year as more instances are reported, with four key reasons attackers target educational institutions: DDoS attacks, Data theft, financial gain, and espionage.

Other key industries that have not provided sufficient training include Marketing, Advertising and PR (47%), Medical and Health (42%) and Charity and Voluntary Work with 29%.

Understandably, the sectors with far more stringent cyber security training processes include Legal Services (16%) and Recruitment and HR (19%).

Specops also sought to find out if the level of cyber security training had changed since the beginning of COVID-19.

Out of the 1,342 respondents, the results revealed the following: ■ I have been trained a lot more since COVID-19 – 21% ■ I have been trained a little more since COVID-19 – 37% ■ I have not been trained since COVID-19 – 42% Business Sector

% of businesses that have since implemented cyber security training sessions since COVID-19

Education and Training

76%

Medical and Health

65%

Computer and IT

39%

Travel and Hospitality

37%

Customer Service

23%

Creative Arts and Design

22%

On average, just 41% of employees across all sectors surveyed have not been provided adequate cyber security training.

Charity and Voluntary Work

15%

Marketing, Advertising and PR

13%

It is perhaps unsurprising that those working in Travel and Hospitality have not been adequately trained against cyber threats (84%). It comes after EasyJet was recently targeted in a serious cyber-attack whereby email addresses and travel details for around 9million customers was breached.

Legal Services

13%

Accountancy, Banking and Finance

10%

Recruitment and HR

8%

In second place is Education and Training. 69% of respondents who work in this industry claim they have not been trained

Continued on next page

The Bill of Middlesex | 11

SPOTLIGHT ON

Continued from previous page Specops Software found on average just 29% of business sectors have initiated additional cyber security training.

94% of respondents claimed it was the responsibility of their company to keep them up to date with cyber security training, whilst 79% could not identify if they were hacked!

To further complement the survey, Specops Software’s Cyber Security Expert Darren James has provided some expertise: 1. Why is it important for all employees to be trained?

The fact of the matter is that you can put as many security systems and procedures in place as you wish, but usually the weakest link is always the human being involved. Providing cyber security training is essential. Subjects such as password hygiene, email scam/phishing/malware awareness, social media usage etc. are important and the more attention we can bring to it via training at work, the less likely people in general will fall victim to these crimes.

2. Should companies integrate training on a regular basis and how often?

Generally, it’s a good idea to provide basic training to everyone, and to all new employees, so everyone is at least on the same page. Then, it is a good idea to promote awareness through the use of a good password policy, and maybe when IT experience interactions with users e.g. service desk/desktop support etc. provide further reminders where appropriate. Some “high risk” users such as IT admins, HR and finance teams should have regular awareness training.

3. What can companies do to ensure training is kept up to date, especially now everyone is working from home?

Working from home represents another challenge when providing training. You can send emails out or put something on an extranet/ intranet page, but let’s be honest not many people are going to willingly go and look. Try arranging a “working from home cyber security awareness" call if possible – whether it is per team, or with team managers who can then pass on key information.

Please see the full research here: https://specopssoft.com/ blog/uk-business-sectors-lacking-cyber-security-training/ ■

Greater than ever need for law firms to remain cybersecure ■ Review of 40 reported cyberattacks across which £4 million stolen.

■ One in four firms had inadequate processes and controls ■ E xamples of good and poor practice common throughout With Covid-19 meaning huge numbers are now working remotely and carrying out both personal and business affairs online, a new report has highlighted the need for law firms to remain extra vigilant over the threat posed by cybercriminals.

Published today, the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s (SRA’s) Cybercrime Thematic Review takes an in-depth look at 40 incidents of cybercrime reported by law firms to the regulator over a three-year period. While not all resulted in financial loss, the cases reviewed did collectively see more than £4million stolen by criminals. These figures do not include the wider impact and costs the crimes had on both law firms and their clients.

The review, which considered incidents that occurred between 2016 and 2019, found that law firms and legal transactions were still a common target for cybercriminals. Two of the larger firms visited reported that they were targeted by hundreds of different cyberattacks every year.

Most of the firms visited said they were aware of the dangers posed by cybercrime and felt that the most important factor in defending against it was the knowledge and behaviours of their staff. Despite this, the SRA still found that only around two-thirds of staff in the firms it visited claimed to be ‘knowledgeable’ about cybersecurity and IT issues, with some senior figures even unable to answer basic questions about terminology.

Although human error was identified as their biggest risk, more than a quarter of firms visited did not have adequate 12 | The Bill of Middlesex

cybersecurity policies and controls in place, while a fifth did not provide specific training on IT and cybersecurity.

Paul Philip, SRA Chief Executive, said: “It will be some time before the implications of the Covid-19 pandemic for the legal sector are fully understood, but we all know that millions more people than ever before are working from home, be they law firm employees or clients. That means the need for everyone to remain cybercrime vigilant has never been higher. Law firms should make sure that they have effective cyber security policies in place, and, crucially, that everyone in the firm understands and follows these day-to-day.”

Good practice identified during the visits included the widespread use of anti-virus software, two-factor authentication for many sensitive interactions, regular backing up of data, and nearly a third of firms holding specific cybercrime insurance.

However common incidences of worrying practice included: ■ More than half of firms allowed external USB sticks to be plugged into company devices ■ Two firms were using out-of-date Windows operating systems, with a further 16 using systems soon to become unsupported ■ Firms did not necessarily report/know when they had to report incidences of data theft to the Information Commissioner’s Office In April the SRA published dedicated Covid-19-themed cyber security advice and Q&As. The thematic review, published today, can be found here: www.sra.org.uk/sra/how-we-work/ reports/cyber-security/ ■

SPOTLIGHT ON

Protecting the legal advice sector in 2020

2020 has been a year like no other for most of us.

While many of us have been struggling with the adjustment to working from home, not seeing colleagues, and feeling isolated, the most vulnerable in our society have been dealing with even more severe problems. People have lost jobs, are struggling with benefits, and have suddenly been plunged into severe poverty1; while domestic violence cases have increased2. Many people who have never experienced poverty or its related issues are now facing them, without knowing where to go for help. The free legal advice agencies that exist to serve them are facing an exponential increase in the demand for their services, many without the resources to meet them. One agency, Citizens Advice East End, reports as many as 450 people per day requesting help.

To understand how this situation came to be, we must first look at the state of the free legal advice sector before coronavirus emerged. The 2020 Advising Londoners report, produced by the Advice Services Alliance, illustrates the tenuous position many agencies were in even before the pressure of the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown. The report states: “several policy and funding decisions since 2010 have both increased the demand for information, advice and support on issues relating to social welfare law, and at the same time reduced the capacity of the advice sector to deliver advice. Extensive reform of the welfare benefits system has been introduced at the same times as extensive public spending cuts and reductions in legal aid, which was previously a major source of funding for the advice sector”.3 So, to this already precarious situation was added the dramatic increase in the need for advice that resulted from the effects of COVID-19. This has meant that many advice agencies that were already operating on shoestring budgets are now struggling to meet the demand they are facing.

While the issues facing legal advice agencies are large and nuanced, they need our support now more than ever. High quality legal advice, delivered in time, has the power to turn people’s lives around. London Legal Support Trust fundraises for these free frontline legal advice agencies, to help them continue the important work they do.

This year, the legal community will come together on the 5th of October for the London Legal Walk 10xChallenge. With over 4,000 participants and 600+ teams registered from firms, chambers, courts, and more, it is apparent that the legal community are doing their best to support this important cause. The need for funds is more urgent than ever; please consider donating to the London Legal Support Trust so they can continue their vital work. Because everybody should have access to justice.

For more information, visit: www.londonlegalsupporttrust.org.uk. ■ 1. Patrick Butler, “Extreme poverty 'will double by Christmas' in UK because of Covid-19”, The Guardian, 14 September 2020, www.theguardian.com/society/2020/sep/14/coronavirusextreme-poverty-in-uk-will-double-by-christmas-trustpredicts 2. Mark Townsend, “Revealed: surge in domestic violence during Covid-19 crisis”, The Guardian, 12 April 2020, www.theguardian.com/society/2020/apr/12/domesticviolence-surges-seven-hundred-per-cent-uk-coronavirus 3. Advice Services Alliance, Advising Londoners, https://asauk. org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Advising-LondonersReport-30072020-1.pdf, Page 10.

The Bill of Middlesex | 13

ARTICLE

Court proceedings for evictions C

ourt proceedings for evictions can restart on September 21 but the government has introduced a measure preventing them from taking place, in certain circumstances.

Keith Pearlman is a partner at city law firm DMH Stallard and an expert in property litigation. To speak to Keith directly contact Chris Gape at Cobb PR on chris@cobbpr.com or call 07779 252 860.

Keith said: “It is a really sad and difficult situation for tenants living with the risk of losing their homes during the pandemic.

However, the most recent government intervention should provide some solace over the winter months as enforcement for non payment of rent will remain extremely difficult. What was hard before, has become a whole lot harder for landlords as a result.”

“From a tenant’s perspective, they should try to ensure that rent arrears remain less below six months, if at all possible. This will

mean that any notice periods stipulated in statutory termination notices served by landlords, cannot take effect for at least six months, with inevitable delays in possible future enforcement to follow. Where arrears exceed six months, the notice periods are just four weeks.”

“Landlords remain in a difficult position. Their livelihoods are increasingly threatened at the prospect of not receiving any income for many months and/or failing to recover their properties before 31 March 2021 – in reality, way beyond this date by the time effective enforcement takes place. This is despite on-going obligations to continue serving their lenders and ensuring the property remains safe and habitable for their tenants.”

“Landlords who want to regain possession of a property at the end of a tenancy, must now serve notice at least six months beforehand (the earliest date now extended to 31 March 2021), with proceedings being issued within a tight four month period to follow, failing which they have to start the process again.” ■

Five factors stopping junior lawyers from becoming high achievers A

survey with leading law firms has identified five factors which are holding law graduates back from becoming high achievers.

The survey also showed that undergraduate law degrees are not effectively teaching the business skills that students need for a successful career in law.

The survey with ten of the leading law firms in the South West, including Michelmores, Womble Bond Dickinson and Browne Jacobson, was conducted by Kies Consulting.

Michael Schauer, Director of Kies Consulting said: “The transition from an academic to commercial world can be an uphill struggle for junior lawyers. Our research has shown that the factors that decide which junior lawyers will be high achievers is not just down to legal excellence. Practical business skills are vital and this is something that many new graduates struggle with.”

The need for improved attention to detail among junior lawyers, particularly in business writing was identified by 92% of participants in the survey. Junior lawyers’ lack of emotional intelligence and the ability to build resilience and perseverance was highlighted as a barrier to success by 83% of the survey’s participants.

14 | The Bill of Middlesex

The survey also pin-pointed junior lawyers’ lack of commercial awareness and difficulty in establishing the necessary work ethos as issues. Finally respondents identified the need for a well-balanced mistake culture in a firm, where mistakes are seen as a starting point for a learning opportunity.

Michael Schauer added: “We hope our research sparks discussion among law firms and law schools on how to address the root causes of the issues that are holding junior lawyers back.”

“Irrespective of whether universities or law firms pick up the baton to resolve these issues, the feedback we have received suggests that unstructured learning by observation and imitation during a training contract is not enough. It seems unlikely that the introduction of the Solicitors Qualifying Exam next year will resolve these issues as it will focus on technical issues.

“Learning programmes which are practice orientated will reduce the burden on senior staff coaching younger talent and will speed up the return on investment on a firm’s training contract.”

Kies Consulting has developed a Junior Lawyer Career Programme to give junior talent the foundation to improve their professional and personal effectiveness. The full Junior Lawyer Effectiveness research report and more detail on the Junior Lawyer Career Programme is available at www.kiesconsulting.co.uk. ■

ARTICLE

Mediation in the wake of Coronavirus – Court Guidance & Cabinet Directives

2020

has been a rollercoaster of a year from mid-winter storms and flooding to the ever emerging threat of COVID-19, court closures and social distancing. If recent WHO announcements and the previous Sars epidemic teach us anything, we are all in this very much for the long haul. Lord Burnett of Maldon, the Lord Chief Justice, has made it clear that the court system will never again operate as it did before the Coronavirus pandemic. Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury, a former President of the Supreme Court, also appeared on Radio 4’s Today programme encouraging parties to consider mediation. We will all have to acclimatise to change and new working practices.

We have all seen multiple headlines about Virtual Justice and Remote Hearings. Technology certainly has been pushed to the fore not least in world of Mediation where the use of ZOOM Pro has become the industry standard and default platform for ONLINE Mediation.

In the wake of Coronavirus there has been a string of three cases in 2020 in which the parties who refused to mediate were financially penalised by the courts, laying down a marker for more stringent times ahead. Indeed as the Law Society has commented recent cases have provided “a very real economic incentive for parties to say ‘yes’ to mediation, because the price of saying ‘no’ has become rather costly.”

Cases Post PGF II Litigation Solicitors will be fully familiar with PGF II which is embedded in the court and pre-action practice landscape. PGF

II itself came within the wake of a number of previous cases.

With each new tranche of cases has come increased emphasis on the use of ADR. Amidst the clamour for the revival of the football league season another Football Club entered the legal arena and received a scolding at the hands of the courts. For local football fans fortunately this was neither Southampton FC nor Portsmouth FC but rather a more distant northern cousin.

In DSN v Blackpool FC [2020] EWHC 670 (QB) which concerned a somewhat delicate matter involving a football scout, a claim for sexual abuse and vicarious liability, Mr Justice Griffiths stated: “No defence, however strong, by itself justifies a failure to engage in any kind of alternative dispute resolution” echoing the words of the Court of Appeal in N J Rickard Limited v Holloway & Anor [2015] EWCA Civ (unreported) where the Court of Appeal observed that “no dispute was too intractable for mediation.”

DSN v Blackpool repeated the earlier observations of Sir Geoffrey Vos C in OMV Petrom SA v Glencore International AG [2017] EWCA Civ 195 at para 39 where he stated: “The regime of sanctions and rewards has been introduced to incentivise parties to behave reasonably, and if they do not, the court’s powers can be expected to be used to their disadvantage. The parties are obliged to conduct litigation collaboratively and to engage constructively in a settlement process.”

Continued on next page The Bill of Middlesex | 15

ARTICLE

Continued from previous page In the somewhat more wordy and certainly more harrowing case of BXB v (1)Watch Tower and Bible Tract Society Of Pennsylvannia and (2) Trustees of the Barry Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses [2020] EWHC 656 (QB) an indemnity costs award was likewise meted out for a failure to engage in ADR. Similarly in Wales (t/a Selective Investment Services) v CBRE Managed Services Ltd & Anor [2020] EWHC 1050 (Comm) which concerned pensions and commissions, a costs sanction was imposed for refusing to mediate.

The tide is certainly turning strongly in favour of mediation as the go to platform for parties and solicitors alike and a number of commentators have referred to this being a watershed moment although the writing has been on the wall for some time.

In Thakkar v Patel [2017] EWCA Civ 117 Lord Justice Jackson at para 31 stated: “The message which this court sent out in PGF II was that to remain silent in the face of an offer to mediate is, absent exceptional circumstances, unreasonable conduct meriting a costs sanction, even in cases where mediation is unlikely to succeed. The message which the court sends out in this case is that in a case where bilateral negotiations fail but mediation is obviously appropriate, it behoves both parties to get on with it. If one party frustrates the process by delaying and dragging its feet for no good reason, that will merit a costs sanction. In the present case, the costs sanction was severe, but not so severe that this court should intervene.”

More sanctions for the unwary will certainly follow. It has become increasingly clear that judicial efforts to get parties to negotiate rather than litigate have moved away from the carrot towards the stick. Commentators have described it as a “relentless push towards mediation.”

As the Directive further states at Para 17: “The Government would strongly encourage parties to seek to resolve any emerging contractual issues responsibly – through negotiation, mediation or other alternative or fast-track dispute resolution – before these escalate into formal intractable disputes.”

There is both judicial and political will to bring about a new way of doing things whether through telephone or video hearings or pro-active encouragement of negotiation and ADR. There are already significant court backlogs and in a socially distanced world cases will invariably take longer. Parties will be required to make genuine attempts to resolve their dispute and are likely to face tougher court sanctions if they do not. His Honour Judge Bird said that parties will be expected to “make all sensible efforts” to avoid trial. Within the wake of the above cases Offers to Mediate have even been referred to as “the new costs weapon.”

Coronavirus has descended upon us clothed in a cape of fear and uncertainty, disruptive, climactic, foreboding, ushering in a sea of change but also promising opportunities for transformation.

Mediation may help you shoulder the burden of client needs and expectations and move forward to a brighter and more productive future. ■

Russell Evans

Mediator Mediation Expert of the Year in the United Kingdom – GAE Award 2020

Cabinet Office Guidance On 7 May 2020 the Cabinet Office issued Guidance directed at both public authorities and private enterprise as to the conduct it would expect in relation to disputes arising out of contracts in the wake of the Coronavirus epidemic. Parties are specifically required to engage in “responsible and fair behaviour” which includes “requesting and responding to requests for mediation” (See Para 15).

Solicitors urged to respond to frozen asset list if needed

S

olicitors have just over month to check the latest HM Treasury Consolidated List of asset freeze targets to make sure they are not holding monies belonging to a client that is subject to financial sanctions.

HM Treasury has given anyone who is holding frozen assets until 16 October 2020 to submit a report to the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI).

Sanctions are an important foreign policy and national security tool and solicitors should be aware of their ongoing responsibilities. The profession needs to comply with financial sanctions in place in the UK and to report frozen assets and other relevant information to OFSI immediately.

16 | The Bill of Middlesex

Juliet Oliver, SRA General Counsel, said: “Solicitors should be aware of their obligations under financial sanctions legislation and make sure they are not helping anyone with dubious funding streams. This risk exists for every single solicitor and law firm, whether conveyancing on the high street or handling global transactions.”

“We would urge all of you to look at the review and, if a client is listed and you hold any of their assets, make a report as necessary.”

All completed reports should be emailed to ofsi@hmtreasury. gov.uk using the template on the GOV.UK website, which also feature more information on financial sanctions. ■

ARTICLE

Disputed Will claims at an all time high C

urrent published statistics show that claims issued in the High Court in respect of contested Will disputes are at a record high.

The reasons for disputing a Will There are many reasons why a beneficiary who is disappointed by a Will or lack of one might want to challenge a Will.

I thought a Will was unchallengeable Let me start by saying that the above statement is in most cases correct. If a will is drafted correctly by a solicitor, the formalities are completed and the person making the will is of sound mind, then in most cases a Will is very difficult to challenge. My first piece of advice therefore is if your do not have a Will or it needs updating then seek advice from a reputable solicitor and it is likely that that Will cannot be challenged. My colleagues here at Biscoes can help with this.

This might just be because they have been left out or have not received as much from the estate as they thought they should in those cases, depending on circumstances, a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 can be made.

Why then are challenges to Wills and disputes over inheritance increasing and at an all-time high There are many factors as to why Will disputes are on the increase, these can be summarised as follows: 1. It is estimated that up to 50% of the adult population do not have a Will at all. This means that if someone dies without a Will the Estate will be distributed in accordance with the Rules of Intestacy and this can lead to disputes.

2. The change in families and their diversity, often there are second marriages and children from both marriages believe they should inherit and when this does not happen disputes arise.

3. Increased life expectancy often means that a Will is either old and outdated and does not consider a change on circumstances or people are making Wills when they get much older and issues of capacity, i.e. whether someone had the mental capacity to make a Will arises.

4. Increase in property prices will often mean that a deceased estate is worth much more than it used to be which means there is more money to argue about and this increases the risk of disputes.

Alternatively, there may be arguments that the deceased did not have capacity to make the Will, may not have understood the nature of the Will and their assets or may have been unduly influenced.

There may be other reasons to such as promises that may have been made by the deceased to someone that they might inherit and upon reliance of those promises the disappointed beneficiary may be able to rely in certain circumstances on those promises.

What should you do then if you find yourself in this situation?

Firstly, you should act quickly as in some cases you only have a limited amount of time to claim or protect your position.

You should seek advice from a specialist solicitor, preferably one with an ACTAPS qualification to explore your case and your options. â–

Kevin Richardson Biscoes

The Bill of Middlesex | 17

ARTICLE

COVID-19: A safe system of work?

A

s law firms cautiously begin to plot a return to the office in the coming weeks as lockdown is gradually eased, they need to be alive to potential pitfalls that could leave them exposed to employers’ liability claims. In this article, James Robins and Ivan Roots of Womble Bond Dickinson, who are specialists in defending law firms, identify some of the key issues and how to address them.

employee establishing a breach of duty by demonstrating that the appropriate measures were in place and being followed in their offices.

The duty Law firms owe a duty of care to their employees in respect of their health, safety and wellbeing. This is a broad duty which includes, amongst other things, providing employees with a safe place to work and safe work equipment.

The uncertainties regarding the source, transmission, incubation and symptoms of COVID-19 have been widely reported. All of these factors would make it difficult for an infected employee to prove that their office was the source of infection, and that they contracted the infection as a result of a breach by their employer.

In order to establish breach of duty an employee must show that their employer has been negligent. If successful, employees may be entitled to compensation as a result of any loss or injury which was caused, or materially contributed to, by such negligence.

Following the strict lockdown measures that were imposed in March, many firms across the country made arrangements for their employees to work from home. However, now that restrictions have started to ease, firms need to consider how to re-open their offices safely whilst complying with both their ongoing statutory duties and the current HSE guidance.

Mitigation Once fee-earners and support staff start returning to the office, the onus will be on firms to implement the necessary measures to mitigate against the effects of the spread of COVID-19 in their offices. In particular, firms will need to demonstrate that they have implemented a safe system of work which is being followed by employees, and can be readily adapted and reassessed in accordance with updated guidance as a result of any new or increased risks.

Firms should therefore ensure that they are well informed as to the current requirements of employers in light of the pandemic, and the HSE guidance on the risks of COVID-19 in the workplace and how to mitigate its spread should be under continuous review.

The current guidance suggests that firms should be taking the following preventative measures in order to reduce the risk of infection in the workplace to the lowest practicable level by: ■ complying with social distancing; ■ promoting regular handwashing and surface cleaning; ■ not allowing those who are unwell to attend offices.

With the above in mind, it is therefore essential that firms and their insurers ensure that a risk assessment has been carried out to identify the risks of transmission within their offices and the measures to implement in order to minimise those risks.

Measures will include more frequent cleaning of workspaces, limiting the number of people using shared facilities such as lifts, kitchen areas and toilets as well as providing reception and front-of-house staff with relevant protection (i.e. masks, sanitiser and screens where necessary).

In addition to reducing the risk of transmission, a risk assessment will also help firms to reduce the risk of an 18 | The Bill of Middlesex

Causation In addition to proving breach of duty, an employee must show that the employer’s breach materially contributed to their injury.

However firms should be mindful of how the courts may approach the issue of causation as and when employer liability claims begin to arise. By way of example, it is worth noting that the courts have adopted a more sympathetic approach to claimants in respect of potentially comparable asbestos claims.

In such claims, claimants are not required to prove where a single level of asbestos which caused them injury was inhaled – as this would be near impossible to prove. Instead, it is sufficient to establish whether an employer has materially increased the risk of harm to employees. For now, in light of the uncertainties about how the virus spreads, it seems unlikely that the courts will adopt the same approach with COVID-19 claims but only time will tell.

Injury and damages So far, it has been suggested that as many as 80% of infections are mild or asymptomatic. For firms this means that many potential claims are likely to be limited in value due to the low levels of injury actually caused. By contrast, employees will need to carefully consider the cost implications of pursuing such claims against firms, particularly in light of the difficulties in proving breach and causation outlined above.

What’s next?

The unpredictable nature of COVID-19 has left many law firms unable to plan further ahead than a few weeks at a time. However, law firms should be ensuring that their risk assessments are a constant priority over the coming weeks and months. With COVID-19 likely to be with us for the foreseeable future, law firms need to be ready to demonstrate that they are doing all they can to identify and mitigate the risks of transmission of COVID-19 within their workplaces in order to protect their employees. ■

James Robins

Partner Insurance Womble Bond Dickinson

Ivan Roots

Associate Professional Risks Womble Bond Dickinson

ARTICLE

Legal Services Board delays decision to accept or reject SQE – Chaos as group representing more than 4,000 legal academics urges refusal

T

he Legal Services Board (LSB) has given itself more time to make its decision on whether or not to approve the new solicitor super-exam, it has emerged.

The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) formally submitted its Solicitor Qualification Exam (SQE) proposals to the LSB on 31 July.

The LSB had an initial 28 days to approve the regulator’s blueprint for the new route to solicitor qualification but extended the decision period to 90 days as permitted by the Legal Services Act 2007. A new deadline has now been set for 28 October.

“The SQE application represents a significant change of policy to the framework for admission as a solicitor in England and Wales that requires careful consideration by the LSB,” the extension notice said, continuing: “It will be necessary for the LSB to make additional enquiries with the SRA so that the LSB may fully understand the impact of the proposed change for both consumers and the profession.”

The LSB’s delay to formal approval is another step in the superexam’s bumpy journey towards inception.

A group of five legal associations last month wrote a joint letter to the LSB urging it not to approve the SRA’s application. The Association of Critical Legal Scholars, the Association of Law Teachers, the Committee of Heads of University Law Schools, the Society of Legal Scholars and the Socio-Legal Studies Association, which have a combined membership of over 4,000 legal academics, claim the SRA’s proposals “are not justified by any significant evidence that the previous arrangements were endangering the interests of consumers or the public interest”, and are unlikely in practice to be significantly cheaper than the current regime.

The group take issue with the proposed multiple-choice question (MCQ) format of SQE1. They write: “A major deficiency in the proposed arrangements is that they are wholly inadequate to ensure that candidates demonstrate the understanding and skills needed to advise clients in those many and complex situations where the law is uncertain. This may be because of gaps or inconsistencies in case law or because statutes require interpretation. These are matters that require the deployment of considerable legal skills in analysing case law and interpreting legislation that go way beyond anything that can be tested in a multiple-choice question.”

Further, the letter says the SRA’s work experience requirement forms a barrier to qualification that will “benefit prospective applicants from better connected friends and family networks”, and that non-law grads that pass the SQE are “unlikely to find employment as a solicitor unless they can rely on personal contacts”.

Despite these concerns, the SRA has not wavered in its commitment to the SQE. Commenting on the proposals earlier this summer, Paul Philip, SRA chief executive, said: “Extensive input, expert and independent review and careful testing means we are confident that we have developed a rigorous, fair, world class assessment for all aspiring solicitors, regardless of background or route taken. The SQE will provide greater assurance for the public and employers that qualifying solicitors have met the consistent, high standards they would expect.”

The two-part national assessment is due to come into force from 1 September 2021 – subject to approval from the LSB. City law firms are preparing for the major overhaul to legal education and training, with 40% saying they have thought about the SQE and that plans are emerging. ■

Jez Davison

Benham Publishing

The Bill of Middlesex | 19

ARTICLE

The present picture

D

However it is unlikely that such businesses will be offering the same level of consumer protection or the customisation or depth of service that well managed solicitors’ firms can provide.

To meet this challenge there are three things members can do.

uring the early days of the pandemic in March of this year, news was eagerly awaited and though the spring months speculation raged daily upon all manner of possible outcomes. Much has now been said and written about the experience of lockdown and its impact on families, plans for education, travel and the world of work. After a brief respite during the summer we hover at the brink of a journey through the dark months of winter but hopefully with the benefit of experience and better prepared with plans for delivering our work or developing careers in a new direction.

1. maintain contact with clients and former clients making them aware that you are available to meet their needs 2. give assurance concerning costs and standards by flagging the information on your website a required under the SRA Transparency Rules on your website 3. emphasise the value of the outcomes that you can deliver backed up by long-term protection through professional indemnity insurance and our compensation fund. At a time when many companies and suppliers will be failing the most consumers are looking to avoid additional risks.

Many of our members are smaller firms for whom innovation and initiative are everyday tools of trade. However there have been some fairly radical changes adopted by the profession using some of the technological tools that have been around for a while but only now have been taken up with serious intent.

The Law Society has and advice on tis coronavirus page and really useful toolkits on return to the office www.lawsociety.org. uk/topics/coronavirus and for tips on Brexit transition www. lawsociety.org.uk/topics/brexit/how-to-prepare-for-the-endof-the-transition-period-a-10-step-checklist-for-law-firms. ■

The challenges of conducting interviews, witnessing signatures, explaining procedures and dealing with courts and other institutions who are not fully operational, has forced our members to develop alternative ways of meeting client needs.

For some clients the need to access lawyers has reduced as some commercial markets were closed - temporarily in the case of conveyancing and more permanently for some of the self employed community who have less income and may have ceased business activity. The impact on firms is patchy -some niche firms prosper whist others fail and mixed practices may suffer reduced impact depending upon their market sectors of normal operation.

Retailers in particular have been overwhelmed with a range of new problems having to furlough employees and compete with online producers. Commercial property landlords have been left high and dry and having to deal with insolvency situations.

The demand for the services of employment solicitors and family lawyers has increased. The criminal courts now have an enormous backlog and the LAA have introduced enhanced payments on account arrangements to mitigate cash flow for legal aid practitioners. This has been welcome alongside new Crown Court payment scales and the extension of the criminal legal aid contract until 2022.

What next?

So how should we respond over the next six months. The prolonged period of uncertainty. extends back before the pandemic to the previous years when the Brexit stalemate dominated the news and economic activity. There are two probabilities - that clients will need advice from solicitors more than in the previous periods but also that personal finances will be stretched. Solicitors will need to be resilient as they have shown themselves to be thus far and flexible to meet the demands and aware of competition from non-regulated service providers.

Unregulated services are available nationwide to provide family advice, employment advice and court representation, through non-qualified organisations. These businesses invariably represent themselves as offering cheaper outcome for clients and they will not have the same regulatory burden as SRA regulated firms. Indeed that freedom may well go to boost sophisticated marketing and convenience software.

20 | The Bill of Middlesex

Finding your way

I

n March those solicitor firms -about 15% of the market - who renew their annual professional indemnity insurance reported an uncomfortable jump in premiums as the market hardened.

At the time of writing this same situation is being played out across the 85% of firms who renew at the end of September.

Most will renew cover often with the same insurer but will find the cost has increased between 25-40% depending on any increase in turnover or proportion of conveyancing. The increases are particularly steep for those with a claims record and premiums for cover in the layers above the minimum of £2m/£3m are also substantially higher. The reasons for this have not been hidden - insurers have withdrawn from the market or been unwilling to take on any new risks and decided only to consider existing clients and to avoid exposure to certain types of work.

It seems inevitable that apart from firms closing for retirement or agreed merger there will be a number of firms left without cover or forced to make the uncomfortable decision not to renew because of the steep increasing cost and the uncertainties of the Covid induced recession. For some, prepared to pay the increased cost, the availability of government backed loans will have provided the means of staying in business for another year to await recovery of the economy.

For those facing the decision to close the steps are difficult but help and support from various agencies supported by the Law Society will be of help so that the journey is not faced alone. The organisations have been briefed on the situation and are aware of the issues.

There have also been discussions between the Law Society and the SRA and the SRA guidance on requirements for closing down you practice are clear www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/ guidance/closing-down-your-practice. There is also an article on this at https://communities.lawsociety.org.uk/july-2020/ closing-down-your-firm/6001185.article.

ARTICLE

The Law Society has produced an array of materials on various aspects of closing down a firm. www.lawsociety.org.uk/topics/ professional-indemnity-insurance/what-happens-if-youcannot-renew-your-pii and www.lawsociety.org.uk/topics/ coronavirus. ■

New choices D

epending upon your health age appetite and experience there may also be alternatives where having closed a firm or lost your employment in a firm.

You may wish to continue in practice and be able to do so either as an employee with another firm or an unregulated organisation, or on your own as a freelancer.

See guidance at www.lawsociety.org.uk/topics/regulation/ freelance-solicitors and unregulated firms at www.lawsociety. org.uk/topics/business-management/solicitors-offeringlegal-services-to-the-public-from-unregulated-entities.

In all these cases, it is essential to have a plan. As a freelancer, a solicitor can carry out reserved activities (if they are more than 3 years qualified) but cannot be in partnership, a limited company or have employees. There may be difficulties in obtaining any suitable form of insurance particularly if less than 4 years qualified and if solicitors become freelancers, thought needs to be given as to how to manage an exit and to discharge the liabilities of that new business in due course.

Another option is to become employed as a solicitor in a limited company not regulated by the SRA. This may be attractive where they are not carrying out reserved work, as they are not required to hold PII at the minimum level of the minimum terms and conditions. Alternative cover with policy premiums may be lower.

Other partners are considering putting their firms into run-off, thus taking advantage of lower premiums paid in 2019, and then continuing their career as freelancers. In that case there remains an obligation where freelance solicitors or employed solicitors undertake reserved activity work to hold an adequate and appropriate level of cover.

From a regulatory perspective options that involve putting the firm into run-off trigger a number of important considerations.

For example, client consent to transfer work to a new entity, closing off client account and dealing with residual balances, the return of deeds and storage of the records of former clients.

The SRA must be given notice and have prepared guidance www.sra.org.uk/closing-down-your-practice. You can also obtain help by contacting Professional Ethics on 0370 606 2577 or email professional.ethics@sra.org.uk.

In summary to prepare your plan or even alternative plans you need to be aware of the possible options both inside the regulated sphere sector and outside it. If you choose to operate outside the regulated sphere and are not holding out as a solicitor do remember it is advisable to remove yourself from the Roll. ■

SRA recruiting four new Board members

T

he Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) is recruiting four new Board members as two lay and two solicitor members reach the end of their terms.

The regulator is committed to increasing diversity on its Board and is looking to recruit people who reflect the communities that solicitors serve and the increasing diversity of the profession itself. The SRA is looking for candidates from every background with the ability to think strategically, an appetite for contributing to strategic change, a demonstrable commitment to equality, diversity and inclusion and enthusiasm for acting as an ambassador externally and within the organisation.

The role of the Board is to oversee the work of the SRA as it regulates more than 150,000 practising solicitors and 10,000 firms across England and Wales. Member responsibilities include setting the strategic direction for the SRA, making sure that issues are explored from a range of viewpoints and holding the executive to account for its performance.

Potential lay members should also have understanding or experience of one or more of: ■ using key professional services, including legal, from the perspective of a small business ■ offering support and advice to consumers ■ competition within markets ■ a relevant academic field.

Those looking for solicitor positions should have understanding or experience of one of more of: ■ providing regulated legal services through an alternative business structure in England or Wales ■ practice in a high-street solicitor firm in England or Wales ■ an organisation that provides digital/online advice ■ a relevant academic field.

Anna Bradley, Chair of the SRA Board, said: “I am keen that we bring real diversity to our thinking, whether that is diversity of race, of gender, or of thought and culture. That’s key to delivering what is a busy and dynamic programme of work as we bed in a comprehensive reform programme, transform the way that would-be solicitors qualify and support the sector to make the most of technology.”

“These are challenging times and we want to hear from people from every background who want to make a difference for the users of legal services in this complex and fast-changing landscape.”

The closing date for applications is Tuesday 22 September.

New members will take their places on the Board from 1 January, 2021. Further details of the new Board roles are available to view at: https://jobs.lawgazette.co.uk/job/706078/ four-board-members/ ■

The Bill of Middlesex | 21

WELLBEING

Wellbeing L

awCare is there as ever to provide you with emotional support. You can contact them on 0800 279 6888, email at support@lawcare.org.uk or access live chat via the homepage www.lawcare.org.uk.

The COVID-19 hub continues to be updated regularly with new resources including tips on returning to the office, acknowledging difficult feelings, how to future-proof your career and also includes links of our recent webinars for junior lawyers, sole practitioners and small firms and leaders.

New Chair to board of Trustees LawCare has appointed a new chair to its board of trustees.

Andrew Caplen replaces outgoing chair Bronwen Still as of this month.

Andrew is a Solicitor, Notary Public and a former President of the Law Society of England and Wales (2014/2015), Chair of the Law Society’s Management Board (2010-2012) and Chair of the Law Society’s Access to Justice Committee (2008-2012).

He has written and spoken widely on a range of justice and legal issues. Andrew is based in Hampshire and was a previous Hampshire Law Society President and a great supporter of the law profession locally.

As President, Andrew particularly focused upon Access to Justice together with issues relating to Equality, Diversity and Inclusion. Whilst President he also supported and highlighted the work of LawCare. He has considerable experience within the charity sector and is currently Chair of Spurgeons’ Childrens Charity and a past Chair of Southampton YMCA. He has been a trustee of LawCare since 2018.

Andrew Caplen its work in providing awareness, support and that so needed ‘listening voice’.”

Trustee Recruitment LawCare is recruiting up to four new trustees to strengthen the board and develop their work in supporting and promoting mental health and wellbeing in the legal community. It is an exciting time to join the LawCare board as the engagement about mental health in the legal community is significantly growing. For a role description and the recruitment process visit www.lawcare.org.uk. ■

Andrew said: “I am excited and honoured at the opportunity to chair LawCare’s Board of Trustees as it seeks to continue its soimportant work. Mental health and addiction issues sadly affect so many and the legal profession is by no means immune. It is difficult to underestimate the importance of LawCare and

Wanted – A Solicitors’ take on ‘back to work’

A

s we look towards returning to some normality, it’s crucial we take time to understand solicitors’ experiences over the last few months and ask what challenges might lie ahead, to be able to shape our support moving forward.

The Solicitors’ Charity’s new survey looks at what you’ve experienced during the pandemic but also how the future looks to you and what concerns you may have.

www.sba.org.uk/covid-19/back-towork-survey

22 | The Bill of Middlesex

Please could you take ten minutes to complete this survey and also please share with your colleagues to help them to provide the most accurate and widest view possible. ■

WELLBEING

LawCare launches ground-breaking research study ‘Life in the Law’ L

egal mental health charity LawCare has announced a new ground-breaking research study ‘Life in the Law’ ahead of World Mental Health Day on 10th October.

The charity has teamed up with leading academics in the field Dr Emma Jones (University of Sheffield), Professor Richard Collier (University of Newcastle), Caroline Strevens (Reader in Legal Education, University of Portsmouth) and Lucinda Soon (Solicitor and PhD researcher) along with Nick Bloy (Executive Coach and founder of Wellbeing Republic) and Kayleigh Leonie (LawCare trustee and solicitor) to develop the research study which will look at the impact of work culture and working practices on the wellbeing of legal professionals. The research seeks to understand the day to day realities of life in the law and uses three academic research scales for burn-out, psychological safety and autonomy. Anyone working in the legal industry, including support staff, can complete the online questionnaire across the UK, Ireland, UK, ROI, Channel Islands and Isle of Man. The results will form the basis of an academic paper and will be announced next year.

Elizabeth Rimmer CEO of LawCare said: “This is the biggest ever piece of academic research into wellbeing in the legal industry in the UK and Ireland and we hope it will give us a clear picture of how the culture and practice of law affects mental health. The results will help us to improve the support available to legal professionals and drive long lasting change in legal workplaces so that people working in the law can thrive. We would urge anyone working in the legal profession to take part.”

Dr Emma Jones Senior Lecturer in Law at the University of Sheffield said: “This study is an opportunity to obtain important empirical data on the wellbeing of legal professionals. The findings will give us a valuable insight into the impacts of legal practice and legal culture on individual legal practitioners, raise understanding and awareness of the key issues influencing wellbeing and help shape the development of appropriate and sustainable responses.”

Take part at www.lifeinthelaw.org.uk. ■

The Bill of Middlesex | 23

ARTICLE

Extended Indemnity Period W

here partners believe their firms can trade through the recession and pay the cost of the PII cover they need -and remember it must be ‘adequate and appropriate’ to the claims exposure of the firm over its history - it is important to keep a close control of all aspects of their finances and at all times to be realistic about assessing the point at which it is prudent to close so that they can ensure an orderly wind-down.

Bear in mind that the test for wrongful trading by directors (suspended for just 6 months from March 2020) is whether you knew or ought to have concluded (based on both the general knowledge, skill and experience that may reasonably be expected of directors and the actual knowledge skill and experience of those directors) that there was no reasonable prospect that the company would avoid going into insolvent winding up or administration.

If managers cannot save their firms it is important that they do not risk disciplinary action that could prevent them continuing to earn a living as solicitors.

For firms that are not able to obtain PII at a price they can afford or at all then if at 1 October, they do not have cover, they have 5 days to notify the SRA. www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/ resources/indemnity.

Once firms notify the SRA, they will go into the extended indmenity period under their existing policy. This is made up of a 30-day extended policy period (EPP) and then a 60-day cessation period (CP) and during these periods indemnity cover is provided by the last-named insurer for the firm. The firm can use this time to secure insurance, however, after 30 days it cannot take on any new business.

As a result of the pandemic, the SRA has announced that it may be possible to continue to take on new business beyond the 30 day period and to extend the CP beyond 60 days, with the agreement of insurers and if firms apply for and are granted a waiver by the SRA (www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/waivers/ apply-waiver).

Once a firm enters into the CP it must be taking steps to close down. The SRA carries out a reconciliation process once the October renewal date for Practice Certificates has passed and will discover if anyone has failed to notify them. If firms cannot obtain PII or an extension of their current cover, the firm will either have to close, or merge with another firm and in either case it is likely that the payment of the run off premium will be unavoidable. Although the run-off premium under current policies is commonly between two and three and a half times the last premium (for basic level of cover), it may be possible where partners genuinely have difficulty in meeting the payment to negotiate instalment terms with insurers.

Some partners in firms (and solicitors finding themselves redundant) are looking at the new structures available to see if there are viable alternatives enabling them to continue to practise and offer services having where relevant put their existing firm into run-off. One option is to become employed as a solicitor in a limited company not regulated by the SRA. This may be attractive where they are not carrying out reserved work, 24 | The Bill of Middlesex

as they are not required to hold PII at the minimum level of the minimum terms and conditions. Alternative cover with policy premiums may be lower.

Other partners are considering putting their firms into run-off, thus taking advantage of lower premiums paid in 2019, and then continuing their career as freelancers. In that case there remains an obligation where freelance solicitors or employed solicitors undertake reserved activity work to hold an adequate and appropriate level of cover.

From a regulatory perspective options that involve putting the firm into run-off trigger a number of important considerations.

For example, client consent to transfer work to a new entity, closing off client account and dealing with residual balances, the return of deeds and storage of the records of former clients.

The SRA must be given notice and have prepared guidance www.sra.org.uk/closing-down-your-practice. You can also obtain help by contacting Professional Ethics on 0370 606 2577 or email professional.ethics@sra.org.uk. www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/guidance/professional-indemnityinsurance-extended-policy-cessation-period/ On a similar theme members will be aware that the protection of SIF (Solicitors Indemnity Fund that was closed in 2000) for claims after the initial six year run-off period has been extended

by SRA and now extends until September 2021.

Beyond that firms who have ceased post 2000 and close from now on have no protection for claims made in years subsequent to the 6 year run off period. Neither the market nor the regulators have come up with a ready solution. Theoretically, it may be possible to negotiate with your last insurer for yearly extensions of run-off cover, but that is a less than satisfactory solution as senior solicitors move into retirement.

Behind the scenes Although it is never a topic of much active interest to practitioners until the point of actual change the regulatory framework has been shifting considerably in the last year. The government has strongly signalled that it is not does not regard reform of the Legal Services Act as a priority, and accordingly the Legal Services Board are setting about making changes in the regulated sector within its current powers. It will be looking with CMA towards the outcome of a review by December this year of the measures introduced by the CMA following its Market Study in 2016. On that occasion it said regulation was not working well for consumers and set out its requirement for cost information to be more widely available and that has led to the SRA Transparency Rules. It was recently observed by the LSB that there are regional price variations and how much cheaper work can be carried out in some parts of the country than others, thus encouraging consumers to shop online and obtain services remotely. All solicitors providing their services solely online and without maintaining offices are understandably able to offer lower prices especially in areas where other costs of living costs are lower. Recommendations are likely to be made and taken up that will require further information to be provided as to the nature and quality of the service that firms are providing. The regulators were very keen on price comparison websites, but so far they have not had gained any real traction.

ARTICLE

The CMA will also be pursuing its interest in so-called "unmet legal need’. This minimises the shortfall caused by withdrawal of funding for legal aid and looks to the larger question of why do consumers not utilise solicitors more. The answer most popular for regulators is that legal costs are too high and with more competition they would be lower. That ignores the high cost of regulation and there are of course a variety of answers to this question, not least being that clients may have the relevant knowledge or prefer to sort out their own problems without paying someone else to do it for them. However, there are many who do not know where to go for the right information and cannot afford regulated firms. That has in theory at least encouraged the growth of providers who are not regulated. It now appears to be the ambition of the Legal Services Board to extend the scope of regulation to include unregulated providers at least to the extent of requiring a register of them and a complaints scheme to provide redress for complaints. This is heavily argued as a short-term recommendations made by in the final report of Dr Stephen Mayson. https://stephenmayson. files.wordpress.com/2020/06/irlsr-final-report-final-1.pdf He argues for regulation of specified activities to a basic standard enabling conveyancing or a litigation service.

This does of course mean dismantling the current system of ‘reserved activities’ and the Legal Services Board has indicated that it will be looking into them initially with a view to modernising but potentially also with one eye on the Mayson recommendations. Mayson argues that by opening the field of legal services to piecemeal regulation of standards the regulatory tools can be better targeted. Certain activities would require the provider to be accredited by more limited training than the current ‘title’ qualifications and subject to a system for redress complaints, but not necessarily to the current minimum insurance requirements. Professional titles such a solicitor would cease to be as important and whilst the qualification could allow access for providing various services it is not according to Mayson a necessary prerequisite. Professional ethics and the system of training and education as we know it would be optional; there would be other players in the field who could gain access by other routes.

This brings me finally to the subject of the SQE. The SRA has laboured long and hard with bringing the new qualification examination to finality and their application is currently before the Legal Services Board for approval. The Law Society is supportive in broad terms but has pointed what needs to be done to meet the need for diversity.

Here are the improvements suggested: General 1. All SQE2 assessors to be fully trained in EDI, including unconscious bias.

2. Produce and disseminate information about the SQE in a way that is timely, accessible and reaches diverse candidates.

3. Set out scenarios for how Covid-19 may impact the assumptions made about how the system will work and any implications for EDI. Monitoring and evaluation 1. Monitor and publish data on the profile of candidates and performance in the SQE1 and SQE2, separately and together, by protected characteristic and socioeconomic background.

2. Break down and aggregate data in the Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic category to assess differential impacts within the group as well as in comparison to White candidates.

3. Analyse issues where the intersection of different protected characteristics (e.g. ethnicity and gender), or different

protected characteristics and socio-economic background, might lead to particular disadvantage.

4. Collect and analyse data on prior academic performance to help assess the particular impact of the SQE in widening or narrowing attainment gaps.

Analyse: 1. The relationship between performance in the SQE and the type/form of Qualifying Work Experience.

2. The relationship between performance in the SQE and graduate careers destinations.

3. The relationship between performance in the SQE and longitudinal performance and progression in the profession.

4. Qualitative research to understand better the factors contributing to potential differences in performance in the SQE. 5. The SRA should make an initial evaluation after the first set of assessments, so that any issues can be immediately addressed. Then there should be an independent interim review of the SQE after 2 years, with an independent full evaluation after 5 years.

6. Ensure that if any negative impacts are identified through the monitoring and evaluation that action is planned and taken to address them.

7. Stakeholders to be kept up to date on the details of research planned by the SRA in a transparent and collaborative way and to be consulted on any action to address any concerns about impacts on equality, diversity and inclusion of the SQE. Disability 1. Kaplan to appoint Disability Officers to advise and support disabled candidates and ensure reasonable adjustments are identified and made in a timely way.

2. Publication of a full reasonable adjustments policy, including procedures, criteria for assessment, evidence required and appeals process, including who at the SRA is designated to deal with appeals against Kaplan’s decisions regarding reasonable adjustments. Stakeholders (including the Law Society’s Lawyers with Disabilities Division to be consulted.

3. Confirm that extra time for the completion of Multiple-Choice Tests has been trialled and any issues dealt with (as this can cause the systems to crash due to software and hardware clashes linked to vital accessible software on disabled students’ computers).

4. Demonstrate how the needs of those requiring extra time between assessments will be addressed (more than the standard two days).

5. Demonstrate how Kaplan’s assumption of 25% of candidates requiring reasonable adjustments have been accommodated, including the availability of separate rooms at all centres or suitable alternative arrangements for candidates sitting an exam in another pre-arranged location.

6. Clearly demonstrate that each region has sufficient number of accessible centres (physically, by public transport and with parking) for the first year of SQE assessments and details on how this will be increased over the following three years as demand increases. Consideration must be given to evidence from law schools and LPC providers on the volume and travel distances of disabled students when determining how many assessment centres are sufficient.

7. Details of how the concerns raised about PearsonVue Centres, during 2020’s Bar exam have been considered and addressed where necessary.

8. Evaluate the support for disabled candidates on an ongoing basis, including their satisfaction with the process for securing reasonable adjustments and the accessibility of assessment centres.

The Bill of Middlesex | 25

ARTICLE

However legal scholars and academics have filed their objections, focusing on the lack of requirement for a GDL or LPC where there is no law degree requirement. They argue this creates a fundamental lack of knowledge and understanding and that the proposed form of multiple choice testing with automated scoring will not be able to examine to the extent necessary.

In summary, the grounds why they say approval should not be given: 1. (1) that the SQE in itself, in the absence of a Qualifying Law Degree or Graduate Diploma in Law on the current pattern, is inadequate to provide sufficient protection for consumers and assurance to employers (Quality); (2) that, while there may be some cost saving arising from the reduction in the scope of the assessments required by the SQE by comparison with the LPC, this is more than offset by the fact that no public funding is currently available for SQE preparation outside an undergraduate (UG) or postgraduate (PG) LLM course (Cost); 2. that the increased uncertainty as to employability that arises from the abolition of recognised training routes, when combined with the likelihood of additional real costs, will tend to reduce rather than enhance diversity in the legal profession (Diversity).

3. A major deficiency in the proposed arrangements is that they are wholly inadequate to ensure that candidates demonstrate the understanding and skills needed to advise clients in those many and complex situations where the law is uncertain. This may be because of gaps or inconsistencies in case law or because statutes require interpretation. These are matters that require the deployment of considerable legal skills in analysing case law and interpreting legislation that go way beyond anything that can be tested in a Multiple Choice Question (MCQ). The necessary understanding and skills would be provided by an English law degree that complied with the Quality Assurance Agency Law Benchmark (as recognised by the Bar 1 Standards Board for purposes of qualification as a barrister) or a Postgraduate Diploma in Law covering the foundation subjects (similarly recognised).

But the SRA has steadfastly refused to countenance such a requirement, on grounds that do not stand up to scrutiny. It is 2 now clear from developments since the LSB gave initial approval for matters to proceed that the SQE wholly fails to provide any equivalent assurance. The published model SQE1 questions are in practice entirely focussed on issues where the law is clear (and, in the case of questions on the foundation subjects), very basic. The skills element originally proposed by 3 the SRA for SQE1 has been dropped. The only element involving uncertainty in SQE2 is an exercise where the candidate has to peruse legal materials provided by the examiners and advise a client, an exercise labelled “research” but in truth very limited. This is clearly insufficient to protect the interests of consumers.

The profession may well pay the ultimate price for the abolition of the training contract and its replacement with qualifying work experience. It requires a leap of faith to believe that candidates who emerge with the badge of solicitor under the new scheme will have the understanding and usefulness that training under the present system, however flawed, does provide. A qualifying work experience will not prove to be adequate without the addition of more post qualification training. It means that many who qualify will not have worked closely under supervision and with the help of an experienced practitioner and many will not have confronted the practical realities and quandaries that challenge new solicitors early in their careers. They will 26 | The Bill of Middlesex

simply not have seen the questions which present every day to practitioners and need to be resolved. The problems of trainees working in isolation in the current coronavirus crisis amply demonstrate the issues The underlying imperative is the intrinsic belief of regulators that technology provides the key to the future. Digital working and tools employing artificial intelligence may enable services to be streamlined and delivered on a more uniform basis greater volume and at lower cost but whether that will truly satisfy the unmet need is far form certain.

LSB In recent publications the LSB has pointed out that the price of legal service varies across the country. The limited advice is that consumer in the south might buy services cheaper in the north.

The question is whether they will be buying the same end result.

For some things it may be true but for others not.

The publication of the work of the Public Panel surveyed in June makes interesting reading. www.legalservicesboard. org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Public-Panel-ReportAugust-2020_FINAL.pdf Surprisingly high up is the pretty fundamental finding that the law is complicated and consumers do not have a good understanding of it. That does not in fairness seem to be a fault to place at the door of solicitors who interpret the law but rather a problem for law makers in parliament. The cost of legal services is noted as high and a deterrent.

It is disturbing to read the view that the purchase of legal services is seen as a ‘high risk investment’. However that view is readily understandable by anyone who has faced difficult crises in their lives and perhaps embarked upon long and unsuccessful litigation through the court system. Solicitors costs are high but the question is ‘why would that be the case’ – after all the profession does not enjoy a notably high mean wage.

The cost of regulation including not just practising fees and insurance but the systems for training monitoring supervising and record keeping along with the research of constantly changing law adds up to a long list of immoveable costs that take up the most precious and costly commodity of all – the time of skilled and experienced solicitors who are accountable for themselves and all that is done with their authority.

Although only small sample of 41 was taken these findings are likely to provide a great deal more comment in coming months. ■

Michael Garson

Middlesex Law Society

ARTICLE

Two GPs’ raise legal concerns with Royal College of GP’s regarding opposition to assisted dying

B

indmans LLP represent Professor Aneez Esmail and Sir Sam Everington; two prominent members of the RCGP, who have today invited RCGP’s Council and Board of Trustees to reconsider its decision for RCGP to be opposed to a change in the law on assisted dying, amid serious concerns with the charity’s consultation process last year. Professor Esmail and Sir Everington are joined by The Good Law Project and Dignity in Dying who both share the claimants concerns and request for an urgent review.

The RCGP’s Council agreed in June 2019 to survey its members for their views on what position the College should take on the issue of assisted dying and “to assess whether [members’] views have shifted” since the previous consultation in 2013.

In 2013, its survey found that 77% of RCGP members preferred the College to oppose assisted dying. The 2019 survey – the largest ever conducted by the RCGP on an issue of public policy – saw a dramatic change in members’ views, with just 46% agreeing the College should maintain its opposition; 41% being in support of a change in the law, and 11% preferring a neutral stance be taken by the College. Accordingly, a majority supported a change to the College’s position.

Despite this notable result, the RCGP announced on 21 February 2020 that they had determined that there was ‘no membership support for the College to change its current position on assisted dying.’

The claimants’ contest that this is a irrational interpretation of the results of the consultation. They also have serious concerns over the transparency of the decision-making process. The claimants have today therefore requested that the College reconsider its position and take a more just, reflective and representative approach on this widely debated and incredibly important issue.

Jamie Potter, Partner in Bindmans’ Public Law team, and solicitor for the GPS said: “The College’s decision-making process, and the taking a position on behalf of its membership that is so unreflective of the survey results, raises serious legal concerns. It can only be hoped that the College will carefully reconsider its position given that the membership have made clear there is a significant support for a change.”

Further details can be obtained from the press release of Dignity in Dying available at: www.dignityindying.org.uk. ■

Simple Contract Law: Barrister’s refreshing book strips English law of complexity – making contract law enjoyable!

A

s a practising barrister and law professor, Mark Watson-Gandy is sure of one thing – most legal books are dry, drawn-out and can send even the most seasoned law geek into a deep slumber.

One vital topic often covered with a complete lack of pizzazz is contract law. In his new book, Watson-Gandy has bravely done a complete about-turn, writing an illustrated guide to English contract law that is fun to read, entertaining and succinct.

Synopsis of ‘Simple Contract Law: A brief introduction to English Contract Law’: This book provides an essential introduction to English contract law. Written by practising barrister and law professor, Mark WatsonGandy, whose infectious enthusiasm for the subject permeates the text, the book simply explains all the core concepts and leading cases. Whether you are a law student, businessman or an international lawyer, you will find “Simple Contract Law” to be an easy-to-read, concise, and informative first guide into the subject. Enlivened by the colourful back stories to the case law and with witty illustrations

by Gordon Collett, this book is a welcome antidote to stale traditional contract law textbooks.

“People don’t realise quite how important English contract law is for us all. English contract law has long been the preferred

choice of law for international contracts – often even where the parties or transaction has no connection to the UK. The UK legal services industry is worth £60 billion to the UK economy; the UK legal services market is the largest in Europe and second only globally to the USA. Three quarters of those using London’s commercial courts during litigation come from outside of the UK” explains the author. “I wanted to write something which would cut through the complexity, to give an accessible overview of the law. A quick and easy-to-read guide like this is long overdue.”

Continuing, “If you have an afternoon free, the book gives a swift and entertaining journey through the bits of contract law that really matter; a far cry from the dense dusty textbooks that I was forced to labour through as a student. Dare I say it, you’ll enjoy it!”

‘Simple Contract Law: A brief introduction to English Contract Law’ is available now: https://amzn.to/3kbb6Q4. #LegalservicesareGREAT. ■ Professor Mark Watson-Gandy K.S.G is a practising barrister at Three Stone Chambers in Lincoln's Inn and has appeared in high profile cases in the UK and abroad. He is a Visiting Professor at the University of Westminster and at the University of Lorraine in France. He was made a Knight of the Order of St Gregory the Great in recognition of his work as a barrister and law professor in 2007. In 2020, he was appointed as one of the UK Ministry of Justice’s “Legal Services are Great Champions” to promote English legal services internationally.

The Bill of Middlesex | 27

XXXXXXXXXXXX

The knowledge you need, the service you value.

For over 20 years, Geodesys has been perfecting its comprehensive suite of conveyancing search solutions to clients throughout the UK. Today our bespoke service – including impartial advice, EU-compliant due diligence, secure file management and dedicated support – provides total peace of mind and total compliance every time.

Geodesys. All you need to know.

Call 0800 085 8050 Email customer.services@geodesys.com 28 | The Bill of Middlesex

www.geodesys.com

CONVEYANCING

Making the most of a buoyant property market

A

s the property market resumes following the gradual lifting of lockdown measures, figures from HM Revenue and Customs have shown that property sales rose by an incredible 15.6% in August accompanied by a significant increase in house prices1.

Although experts are predicting that the boom is not sustainable, current sales are also being boosted by the Stamp Duty holiday introduced by the Chancellor in July. This sees the stamp duty threshold increased to £500,000 until the end of March 2021.

First time buyers were already exempt from SDLT on property purchases up to £300,000, so this additional reduction, has definitely been designed to stimulate the overall market. And there’s certainly evidence that it’s playing a role in supporting house sales. Recent data has revealed that 13% of residential properties sold for above the initial asking price2.

Speeding up your SDLT and AP1 returns As a conveyancing search provider, Geodesys offers an Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT) solution, that is fully-integrated with the HMRC and HMLR. As part of our search ordering platform, the service allows you to quickly and securely submit SDLT returns from within the case file created when placing the original order for property searches.

But, perhaps more importantly, our SDLT service provides complete peace of mind, as the online returns process is fullycompliant with the Law Society’s Conveyancing Quality Scheme (CQS) and Core Practice Management Standards, providing automatic validation, review and full audit trail.

Benefits of using an integrated SDLT service: ■ SDLT and SP1 forms are pre-populated based on the information already stored in the Geodesys case file, alleviating the need for duplication when completing the AP1 form ■ Information is validated before submission to HMRC and HMLR. This allows you to correct any human errors which would result in rejection

■ The solution meets the Law Society CQS CPMS 1.2 requirement for an audit trail and third-party review process ■ Instant SDLT5 certification – no long turnaround times ■ Has a comprehensive GDPR toolkit allowing you to search, edit, export and mark to delete your client’s personal data.

■ Drafts can be saved at any time – no need to complete in one go ■ No training is required, and the submission can be made directly and securely from the Geodesys platform.

To help support our conveyancing customers, we are currently offering our simple and efficient SDLT service FREE OF CHARGE until 31 March 20213.

Johnny Davey, our Conveyancing Product Manager comments: “We are delighted that the property market is seeing considerable growth at the moment, following the substantial pause during lockdown. Thanks to our technology-based service, we as an organisation have been able to continue with business as usual throughout and we have a full customer services team in place to support clients. Now that the market bouncing back so rapidly, we are delighted to offer a little something back to our dedicated customers by offering our efficient SDLT service free of charge.

Our ordering process is very straightforward, so why not sign up and give it a go.”

The SDLT service is just one of a number of tools Geodesys offers to provide a seamless and compliant ordering process for property searches. To find out more about our SDLT and our full range of conveyancing services, please visit www.geodesys.com or email Kay Toon, our Key Account Manager at kay.toon@geodesys.com. ■ 1. The Times, 23 September 2020 2. NAEA Property 28 September 2020 3. Free of charge SDLT offer ends 31/03/2021

The Bill of Middlesex | 29

LEGACIES

Angus A

t 16 years old, Angus the Jack Russell Terrier was the oldest resident at Dogs Trust Ilfracombe when he arrived after his owner sadly passed away. Thankfully his owner had signed up to Dog’s Trust’s Canine Care Card, a free service that aims to give owners peace of mind, knowing that Dogs Trust will look after their dog if the worst should happen.

He has now been rehomed to the perfect family where he will spend his golden years!

Elise Watson, Rehoming Centre Manager at Dogs Trust Ilfracombe, said: “Many dog owners worry what might happen to their dog if they were to pass away first, leaving their beloved four-legged friend without an owner. However, the Canine Care Card scheme offers reassurance to dog owners, and also helps to ease the minds of friends and family during what is already a distressing time. But it means you can rest in the knowledge that your dog will be cared for after you die and just like Angus, will go on to find loving homes that are right for them.”

Canine Care Card holders receive a wallet-sized card which acts in a similar way to an organ donor card and notifies people of their wishes for their dogs, should anything happen to them.

Dogs Trust works hard to match every dog with a responsible, loving home. If for any reason a dog takes a while to be rehomed, owners can rest assured that Dogs Trust never puts a healthy dog to sleep and will care for them for the rest of their lives.

If you would like to request Canine Care Card forms that you can give out to your clients please call 020 7837 0006 or email ccc@dogstrust.org.uk and quote code 334582. ■

Who’ll keep him happy when your client’s gone?

We will – as long as your client has a Canine Care Card. It’s a FREE service from Dogs Trust that guarantees a bereaved dog a home for life.

At Dogs Trust, we never put down a healthy dog. We’ll care for them at one of our 20 rehoming centres, located around the UK. One in every four of your clients has a canine companion. Naturally they’ll want to make provision for their faithful friend. And now you can help them at absolutely no cost. So contact us today for your FREE pack of Canine Care Card leaflets - and make a dog-lover happy.

Call

020 7837 0006

Or e-mail

today

ccc@dogstrust.org.uk

Or write to: Freepost RTJA-SRXG-AZUL, Dogs Trust, Clarissa Baldwin House, 17 Wakley Street, London EC1V 7RQ (no stamp required) Please quote “334362”. All information will be treated as strictly confidential.

This service is currently only available for residents of the UK, Ireland, Channel Islands & the Isle of Man

www.dogstrust.org.uk Registered Charity Numbers: 227523 & SC037843

30 | The Bill of Middlesex

TECH ME TO

XXXXXXXXXXXX

AUSTRALIA

WIN AN AMAZING TECH BUNDLE

This year we might not be able to send you Down Under, but that doesn’t mean we can’t give you a ’bonza’ prize.

All you need to do is complete your daily legal tasks through InfoTrack. For every eCOS, SignIT, Indemnity, SDLT, AP1 or Lender Handbook Search ordered, you’ll get an entry into the prize draw. You don’t need to do anything else as we’ll automatically enter you into the draw each time.

Simply put, the more you use InfoTrack, the higher chance you have of winning!

Full terms & conditions apply.

Contact us today to find out more.

Visit www.infotrack.co.uk/techmetoaustralia or call 0207 186 8090 The Bill of Middlesex | 31

XXXXXXXXXXXX

Work from home with ease.

Legal practice management software 32 | The Bill of Middlesex

leap.co.uk/work-remotely