Problems viewing this? Click to view in your browser
The Times

Tuesday, November 29 2016

Frances Gibb and Jonathan Ames bring this morning’s must-read of all things legal, including news, comment and gossip.

Today

  • Supreme Court judges face calls to step down over Brexit
  • Coroner backs legal aid for Birmingham Six inquests
  • Ex-lord chief opposes anonymity for sex offence suspects
  • Patent court go-ahead, but for how long?
  • Scotland deal creates UK’s 15th biggest law firm
  • Bar watchdog lashed over ‘mishandling’ disciplinary case
  • Executives face increased risk of fines and jail
  • Doctors ‘milking’ alleged abuse victims for legal aid reports
  • Comment: Law firm partners must get to grips with management
  • Blue Bag diary: Hack QC in contempt row over Hamlet murder trial

Plus, see our plans for Brief Premium and archive of articles so far.

Tweet us @TimesLaw with your views.

 
Story of the Day

Supreme Court judges face calls to step down over Brexit

Senior Conservatives castigated the UK’s top judges yesterday over Brexit comments as it emerged that one Supreme Court justice felt obliged to withdraw from giving a lecture on Europe this week.

Lord Mance has withdrawn from delivering the Lincoln’s Inn Sir Thomas More lecture on Thursday on Europe after the furore over comments in another recent speech by Lady Hale.

The move – the latest sign of the pressure on the country’s most senior bench – came amid criticisms and a call for Lady Hale to stand down from the forthcoming landmark hearing. Lord Neuberger (pictured), the court’s president, also faced pressure after a series of tweets on Brexit from his wife.

Lord Howard of Lympne, former leader of the opposition and home secretary, said that Lady Hale had seemed to be “getting her retaliation in first” before the justices hold their landmark hearing on Article 50. “That is an utterly undesirable thing for her to have done,” he told a seminar organised by the think tank Policy Exchange on “criticism and accountability in judging”.

Charles Moore, former editor of The Daily Telegraph, told the seminar that Lady Neuberger, a BBC producer who tweets under the name of Angela Holdsworth, had posted some 50 comments about Brexit on the social media site, including criticism of Theresa May. “This is political activity,” Moore said. He went on to say that Lord Neuberger and Lady Hale should consider recusing themselves. He likened the situation to the law lords’ ruling in 1998 on General Pinochet, which had to be re-run after it emerged that Lord Hoffmann, one of the judges, and his wife had links to Amnesty International.

A spokesman for the Supreme Court said: “Justices’ spouses are fully entitled to express personal opinions, including on issues of the day. Lady Neuberger’s passing comments on Twitter have absolutely no bearing on Lord Neuberger’s ability to determine the legal questions in this case impartially, according to the law of the land.”

As for Lady Hale’s recent speech in which she outlined the issues that would be before the Supreme Court next week, the spokesman added that she was “simply presenting the arguments from both sides of the Article 50 appeal in an impartial way for an audience of law students, as part of a wider lecture on constitutional law.

“It is entirely proper for serving judges to set out the arguments in high-profile cases to help public understanding of the legal issues, as long as it is done in an even-handed way.”

 
 
News Round Up
Coroner backs legal aid for Birmingham Six inquests

The families of those killed in the 1974 Birmingham pub bombings should have properly funded legal representation at the new inquests into their deaths, a senior coroner said yesterday, reports Sean O’Neill.

Judge Peter Thornton, QC, who will conduct the hearings into the deaths of 21 people in the IRA bombing of two city centre pubs, said there was “a compelling case for proper legal representation”.

Speaking at a pre-inquest hearing, the coroner said that he wanted the funding issue – which has led to angry exchanges between some of the families and the government – to be settled by early next year. “I support the applications of those families who wish to participate fully in these inquests by way of legal representation,” the coroner said.

Scotland deal creates UK’s 15th biggest law firm

Addleshaw Goddard is to take over the Scottish arm of the first law firm listed on the London stock exchange in a move touted as creating the 15th biggest legal practice in the country, writes Greig Cameron.

Partners at Addleshaw and HBJ Gateley were said to have voted “by an overwhelming majority” to do a deal that will create a law firm with an estimated annual revenue of nearly £225 million. It is the largest Anglo-Scottish law firm merger this year.

The Addleshaw-HBJ announcement was one of two UK cross-border legal profession deals to be unveiled yesterday. DWF, the Manchester practice ranked in the UK top 30, has taken over C&H Jefferson, a commercial law firm in Belfast.

It is the Addleshaw move that will create most ripples, not least because the deal was announced only days before Gateley was set to release its interim financial results next week. The move north of the border will mean that Addleshaw will have 230 partners and more than 1,100 lawyers.

John Joyce, Addleshaw’s managing partner, said that the firm had been eyeing up Scotland “for a while”. Indeed, it is understood that previously the firm had been in merger talks with the leading Scottish law firm Maclay Murray & Spens.

Joyce said that the deal would be completed on June 1 next year. The enlarged firm will retain Addleshaw’s existing management structure, with Charles Penney as senior partner and Joyce continuing as managing partner. HBJ’s senior partner, Malcolm McPherson, will join the Addleshaw board.

The DWF takeover of C&H Jefferson is set to be sealed by this Thursday.

Confusion after ministers give green light to EU patent court

Intellectual property specialists disagreed yesterday over the UK’s future membership of the unified patent court when the country leaves the EU.

The jousting came as ministers announced that the government intended to ratify the agreement despite the result of last summer’s referendum vote in favour of Brexit.

“There is no legal reason why the UK cannot participate in the UPC and remain within it despite an eventual Brexit,” said Penny Gilbert, a partner at the law firm Powell Gilbert. “Working towards establishing that certainty will be an important next phase.”

Russell Barton, a partner at Withers & Rogers, was also optimistic, claiming that the deal was “great news” for small to medium-sized businesses in the UK. “By pressing ahead now with the UK’s involvement in the UPC system,” he said, “the London life sciences branch of the court will also be safeguarded, even after Brexit.

“The involvement of the UK’s legal culture and UK patent judges, with their emphasis on evidence and commerce, will benefit the whole system and should help guide the new court to become the most effective and just venue for patent disputes.”

Sally Shorthose, a partner at Bird & Bird, was far less certain. “The peremptory ratification of the UPC agreement is likely to leave intellectual property-rich industries in some considerable state of confusion,” she said. “It is unclear what would happen to IP rights created, and litigation commenced, after ratification – and therefore under the new regime – on the occasion of Brexit.”

Bar watchdog lashed over ‘mishandling’ disciplinary case

Bar regulators have been lashed for “seriously mishandling” a disciplinary case and forced to retract a £2,000 fine imposed on a lawyer acting in a family dispute.

In a damning ruling, Mr Justice Collins, sitting in the High Court in London, told the Bar Standards Board that it was “seriously at fault” in permitting the case to proceed.

The judge said that he had “no hesitation in recommending that no further action be taken against” the barrister, Julian Smith, a 19-year-call family law specialist practising at Lincoln’s Inn Fields Chambers.

The original disciplinary case related to a family dispute resolution hearing at Milton Keynes county court in 2010. Smith represented the husband, on whose behalf he negotiated a final financial settlement regarding spousal maintenance.

Two years later, the legal ombudsman’s investigating officer recommended that no action be taken as, on the balance of probabilities, no evidence of poor service had been proved. However, the BSB nonetheless brought charges.

Responding to the ruling in the High Court on November 3, which has just been published, a BSB spokeswoman said: “We note the findings in this High Court judgment and will consider them carefully. It would be inappropriate for us to comment any further at this stage.”

Lord Judge opposes anonymity for sex offence suspects

Moves to grant anonymity to suspects in sexual offence cases before charge are being strongly opposed by a former lord chief justice.

Lord Judge, who was the most senior judge in England and Wales from 2008 to 2013, told The Times that it was a “very important principle” that those who have been denied their liberty because of a continuing police investigation should be identified.

“I have concerns about a blanket prohibition imposing silence on the media in circumstances where somebody’s liberty has been taken from him or her, even if for a short time,” he said. “That is not how we work in this country. We do not want people locked up for any time at all without being able to say so.”

The question over anonymity for alleged sexual offences investigations follows the wrongful accusations or investigations against a stream of high-profile figures, including Sir Cliff Richard, Paul Gambaccini, Lord Bramall, Harvey Proctor and the late Lord Brittan. It was two years before Richard was told that he would not face trial over sex abuse allegations after a raid on his home in 2014 was televised live.

Some have claimed that because they were named publicly, their reputations have been besmirched even though they were found to have done nothing wrong.

Alison Saunders, the director of public prosecutions, said last month that she backed anonymity before charge and it was prosecution policy not to confirm names before any charges are laid.

The proposed change to grant anonymity, which is before parliament, has been put forward by Lord Paddick, the former Metropolitan police deputy assistant commissioner. He has tabled an amendment to the Policing and Crime Bill, which would make it an offence to publish any material likely to lead to the identification of a suspect until a criminal charge was brought, unless a judge decided otherwise.

Executives face increased risk of fines and jail

Senior business executives increasingly run the risk of criminal conviction or large fines, one of the world’s biggest insurance companies claimed yesterday.

Risks over cyberbreaches, data privacy, shareholder activism, beefed-up regulation and the influence of third-party litigation funders have combined to put corporate leaders “under more pressure than ever of falling foul of investigations, fines or prosecution over alleged wrongdoing”, the insurance business Allianz Global said.

It described directors and officers as walking a “managerial tightrope” as executive liability increases annually.

“There is a growing trend towards seeking punitive and personal legal action against executives for failure to follow regulations and standards which could result in costly investigations, criminal prosecutions or civil litigation putting the company’s assets, or their own, at risk, the insurance company said in a report released yesterday.

Terry FitzGerald, an executive at Allianz Global, singled out potential legislation in the UK. “If a new corporate offence of failing to prevent economic crime is introduced,” he said, “it will represent a huge expansion in corporate criminal liability.”

FitzGerald acknowledged that the proposed reforms focus on corporate liability, but he maintained “there is … a broader drive to hold individuals accountable in the event of criminal conduct or regulatory breaches at their companies.

“In recent years, increasing emphasis has been placed on personal accountability across all business sectors, with deferred prosecution agreements now a means to further increase co-operation with regulators and encourage best practice. Reform in this area could ultimately have a fundamental impact on the risks faced by senior executives.”

Doctors ‘milking’ alleged abuse victims for legal aid reports

Doctors’ fees are preventing vulnerable alleged victims of domestic violence from bringing evidence that would see their attackers convicted, researchers claimed yesterday.

In some cases, it is alleged that doctors have charged as much as £300 for doctors’ certificates attesting to evidence of domestic violence.

Under changes imposed under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, applicants for state funding to bring cases alleging abuse have had to provide evidence that they or their children have experienced domestic violence.

Many go to their GP for help, but signing legal aid evidence is outside the NHS contract and GPs receive no government funding for doing so. British Medical Association guidelines tell doctors to explain the reasons for the fee and agree the amount in advance, but there is no suggestion for a typical fee they should charge.

Ten family law solicitors from across England and Wales were interviewed by the website MoneySavingExpert.com, with the researchers reporting that all had “seen people who have suffered domestic violence forced to pay for a GP to support a legal aid application”.

Five of the ten have seen fees of £100 or more charged, with the typical fee being £50, but in one case £300 was charged.

In Brief

MPs call on abuse inquiry to make lead counsel priority after Emmerson exit – Legal Business

China’s Top 30 firms post combined revenue up 55 per cent – The Lawyer

California lawyers upset over proposed client-sex ban – Newser

Obituary: Sir Mota Singh – The Times

 
Byline
Comment

Law firm partners must get to grips with management Sylvie Watts

Law firm partners – even at larger commercial practices – undervalue management when running their own businesses.

They do so partly because the value – both in terms of revenue and otherwise – is often not clearly understood. But lawyers also tend to dismiss the work as administrative and even as a cop out from client work. Indeed, at a recent conference, 72 per cent of law firm partners admitted struggling with strategy implementation.

They cannot afford to sustain this mentality – certainly if they want to implement their strategies well, but also if they want to continue being in charge of their own businesses. We live in an age of disruption. If they do not reform, others may happily and lucratively do it for them.

Every business needs a strategy to maximise profits. Developing a winning strategy, however, is not enough; it has to be implemented. This is an obvious point but one that few organisations reach.

Law firms in particular struggle to deliver internally because the partnership culture can make decision-making more complex than in a top-down structure.

Some firms never get as far as developing a strategy at all, believing that their goals – “to be the leading xyz law firm” or something equally broad – are enough. They are not, unless there is an alignment between what the firm wants to achieve with how it intends to do so.

Partners and their teams are the nerve centre and economic engine of a firm. But for many, their role as the leaders of the business seems to conflict with their position as senior lawyers.

This is important because it is inconceivable that any strategy will be successfully implemented without the engaged participation of the whole partnership. But that takes time – and crucially it is time that will not be billable to clients.

In no other profession does client work so absorb the focus of senior management. This is understandable; most partners, at the peak of their careers, are reluctant to trade work they excel at for unfamiliar responsibilities.

But this tension must be addressed if law firms are to be as profitable as possible. The value of internal strategic projects to the partners involved, and their role in ensuring the success of any implementation, must be clearly articulated and genuinely supported.

Law firms committed to implementing their strategies properly need to start with a three-point plan: determine the time needed from partners; equip and support partners with the necessary business skills; and intelligently communicate the value of the project to each partner, on a personal and firm-wide basis.

Sylvie Watts is a consultant at Skarbek Associates, a management consultancy in London, and formerly a law firm partner

 
 
Tweet of the Day

If the MOJ consultation paper on PI reforms was a pleading it would be struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success.

Kerry Underwood @kerry_underwood

 
 
Blue Bag

Hack in contempt row over Dane’s murder trial

Calls mounted overnight for an honorary QC to be stripped of his recently awarded title after it emerged that he had allegedly been in contempt of court.

Joshua Rozenberg, QC (hon), the presenter of Radio 4’s Law in Action and the first journalist silk – honorary or otherwise – stood accused of tweeting a photograph from the jury room in a prominent trial in London.

Rozenberg, a former legal affairs hack for The Daily Telegraph, was one of a jury of six, which also included the comedian Hugh Dennis, the broadcaster Hardeep Singh Kohli, Dinah Rose, QC, of Blackstone Chambers, Jess Phillips, the Labour MP for Birmingham Yardley, and Russell Jackson, a drama professor at the University of Birmingham.

They were hearing evidence in the trial of Hamlet, a spoilt posh kid from Denmark, who threw a strop when his old man pegged out and his mother married his uncle. Hamlet was on a charge for murdering his girlfriend’s father, which was heard at a specially convened trial at Wyndham’s Theatre in London on Sunday evening, all of which raised £60,000 for the Shakespeare Schools Festival.

After much tinned ham from prosecuting and defence silks, including John Kelsey-Fry (Cloth Fair Chambers), Jonathan Laidlaw (2 Hare Court), Shaheed Fatima (Blackstone) and Ian Winter (Cloth Fair), Hamlet was rather surprisingly acquitted. Indeed, no one was more surprised than Lady Justice Hallett, the Court of Appeal judge who presided over the hearing. Telling the layabout Dane that he was free to go, the judge said: “Against the weight of evidence and against all reason, you have been acquitted.”

The world was still awaiting her view of Rozenberg’s contemptuous tweet.

Rockin’ Rinder – worth a punt at 50-1?

Does the dancing demise of some chap who used to be in government and was for a while the shadow chancellor actually obscure a much bigger story?

Who cares about Ed Balls – what are the Strictly Come Dancing chances now on the legal profession’s own Judge Rinder taking the big prize next month (the Beeb is still keeping the broadcast date close to its chest)? Of course Robert Rinder is only a television judge, now in his fourth series of ITV’s reality bonanza Judge Rinder. But he is still a practising lawyer as far as the website of 2 Hare Court in the Temple is concerned.

The bookies have got Rinder as the rank outsider – on about 50-1 – with the smart money backing Danny Mac, the actor, or Louise Redknapp, the singer. But the law’s man remains bullish. And he tells The Brief that he is sure that the legal profession is behind him. “After all, barristers have to defend even the most difficult cases.”

Hitting potential Bar students where it hurts

As if annual tuition fees of £9,000 weren’t bad enough, the Bar Council yesterday made the generous offer of allowing undergraduate university students considering a career at the Bar the privilege of joining the professional body – for a fee.

It will be the first time that students “can sign up to support the work of the Bar Council” – and you can almost hear the cheers ringing out around the union bars across England and Wales.

But while the £24 annual membership fee might be less than small change to a commercial law silk, it represents about a month’s worth of Pot Noodle dinners. Nonetheless, Chantal-Aimée Doerries, QC – the council’s chairwoman and a tenant at Atkin Chambers in Gray’s Inn, which pays its pupils starting salaries of more than £72,000 – reckons the fee is value for money.

“Being part of an organisation such as the Bar Council can help students considering a career at the Bar feel closer to the action,” Doerries said yesterday. “They get a clearer insight of the challenges and opportunities, through information channels such as BarTalk [a fortnightly e-newsletter that tells them how their money has been spent] or via free events to which they would not otherwise get access.”

Meanwhile, there was a potentially welcome development for aspiring lawyers – the solicitor regulator seems keen to slash the prices of qualification.
Julie Brannan, education director at the Solicitors Regulation Authority, told the website Legal Cheek that the reformed qualifying exam being cooked up by the watchdog should be “substantially cheaper” than the existing regime.

At present the University of Law and BPP University Law School – the two biggest providers of the legal practice course, the required vocational stage for solicitors – charge more than £15,200 for a one-year programme in London. It will be interesting to see how popular with those institutions Brannan’s plans are.

 
 
Quote of the Day

“My forebear, John ‘Black Jack’ FitzGibbon, was lord chancellor of Ireland in the 1790s and pushed through the Act of Union. He was so hated that when he died the Dublin crowd pelted his cortege with dead cats. He was the last lawyer in the family before me. I have no political ambitions.”