From the Council Chamber

Since SNELS now has the benefit of two Law Society Council members we thought that we should introduce ourselves.

My name is Tony Fisher and I am the Council member for Essex, and have been since 2012. The Essex constituency now includes North Essex which falls within the area served by SNELS. I am a partner with Fisher Jones Greenwood solicitors with offices around Essex and now in Suffolk too. I have over 40 years’ experience in private practice and am the head of the commercial department and CEO of the firm. Aside from commercial work, I have for many years also undertaken international human rights work and appeared as an advocate in the European Court of Human Rights on many occasions. As well as being on Council I have chaired the Human Rights Committee at the Law Society (I am now a member rather than chair) and I am a member of the International Committee, which oversees the international work of the Law Society.

In March 2022 I was appointed as the UK member of a new Committee of Experts on the Protection of Lawyers at the Council of Europe in Strasbourg. The Committee’s job is to draft a new instrument on the protection of the rights of lawyers in Europe over the next two years.

My name is Donna Taylor and I was appointed as the Council Member for Suffolk back in October 2021. I am a Consultant Solicitor with most of my work being through Nexa Law. I live in Mid Suffolk and I work from home. I am a Private Client Solicitor and have previously had my own firm and been a partner in another firm but now enjoy the flexibility of consultancy so I can enjoy seeing my soon to be 7 year old daughter grow up and be her role model for the future. Being new to Council I am lucky to have a number of members who have taken me under their wing to show me the ropes, including Tony. Its very different to my day to day job! I am interested in mental health within the profession and looking for changes that can be made to bring talent into the profession along with retaining it.

As ever there is much going on at Chancery Lane and we thought we would provide you with a brief summary of the most important.

Criminal Legal Aid

The President recently gave evidence to the Justice Select Committee on the proposals to increase criminal legal aid fees. Despite the headline claim that they are being increased by 15%, in reality the increase is 9% and the further funds being injected amount to £95m and not the recommended £135m. Rates have fallen in real terms by 33% since 2008 and a 9% increase will do little to achieve sustainability within the criminal legal aid community. Unless ongoing lobbying to increase the level of fees is successful it is unlikely that the sector is sustainable much longer.

Judicial Review

The Government has accepted a key Law Society recommendation and agreed to remove the statutory presumption from Clause 1 of the Judicial Review and Courts Bill, in a major influencing win for the Law Society. Removing the presumption was our top priority for improving the Bill. Its removal means that the long-established and fundamental principle of the justice system - that all remedies are discretionary - will continue, and will ensure fair outcomes in judicial review cases that fit the circumstances of the case at hand.

The win on the presumption was the culmination of almost two years of campaigning and engagement from the Law Society around the Government’s plans to reform judicial review.

SIF

The SRA announced in April that, following their consultation, they will not be pressing ahead with their previously stated ‘preferred option’ of closing the Solicitors Indemnity Fund (SIF) at the end of September 2022, and ending any ongoing regulatory requirement for post six year run-off cover (PSYROC). This represents a very significant shift in their position, which we should be proud to have achieved for our members and the consumers they serve.

As you know, the SIF currently provides PSYROC for closed firms, once their mandatory run-off cover has come to an end. Had the SRA decided to implement their preferred option, and closed the Fund, it could have left consumers of legal services or their beneficiaries unable to find compensation for legitimate claims. Moreover, given the absence of any widely available, reasonably priced, commercially provided alternative insurance, it could have left the former principals of closed firms personally liable for any such claims.

The Law Society developed compelling arguments based on the need to protect consumers and built a broad coalition of allies, including local Law Societies, groups representing sections of the profession, individual solicitors, professional indemnity insurance brokers, and consumer bodies and we supported them to respond to the consultation by providing information, arguments, and skeleton responses. The SRA received around 330 responses, making this one of their largest consultations thus far. Their report of the consultation responses records that ‘almost all respondents’ views were negative about the SRA analysis, some saying that they agreed with the Law Society’s view’. Since the consultation period officially closed, we have continued to make a powerful case to both the SRA and the LSB.

The Queen’s Speech

Members will have no doubt read press reports with regard to the ambitious legislative programme announced in the Queen’s Speech. Of particular interest to solicitors will be the proposals to enact a new Bill of Rights which will diminish the standing of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. The Law Society has made many press comments warning of the dangers that this legislation might bring. The President was quoted as saying ‘The Human Rights Act confirms and protects the rights and freedoms of people in the UK and provides robust protection in British courts. Dismantling it will have far-reaching consequences, conferring greater unfettered power not just on the government of today, but also on future ruling parties, whatever their ideology. If the new Bill of Rights becomes law, it would make it harder for all of us to protect or enforce our rights. The proposed changes make the state less accountable. This undermines a crucial element of the rule of law, preventing people from challenging illegitimate uses of power. Weakening rights for some would weaken rights for everyone and undermine the UK’s international reputation for justice and fairness.”