Tag Archive for 'law-gossip'

On the naughty step

Published
by
NL
on 12 June 2008
in whatever
. 18 Comments

The family firm.

It has such a reassuring sound, redolent of values of client care handed down through the generations, and the energy of youth brought under the careful supervision of wisdom. The very best traditions of the local small firm, a foundation stone of the community.

Or not.

Karim Solicitors, consisting of Imran Karim (40), supposedly senior partner, his sister Saira (39) and their mother Shamim (65) have all been struck off the roll in one fell swoop, after leaving a trail of dishonesty proceedings and panicking liability insurers behind them.

Exhibit A, Zurich Professional Ltd v Karim & others, (see page 3 of this pdf) in which Zurich sought, successfully, to avoid liability on claims for misappropriated funds by clients on the basis that the claims arose out of dishonesty and/or fraud, primarily by the first defendant, Shamim Karim, who was found to be the controlling power behind the firm. For the detailed factual background to this case see paras 28 - 33 of this account [PDF]

Exhibit B, the SDT, following a decade long investigation, struck all three off the roll (in their absence). Dishonest use of clients’ money, to the tune of £840,000 was not the only problem.

The money, Imran said, had been spent by him on “a Rolex, loose women and drink”. However, his sister Saira took a more prudent approach and invested her money in business ventures, including the ‘Miss Nude UK’ beauty contest. [See BBC story here, featuring Saira as 'founder']

Sadly ‘Miss Nude UK’ proved to be the beginning of their downfall, when in 1999, company documents for the ‘beauty contest’ arrived at the Law Society in an envelope from Karim Solicitors, who then denied all knowledge.

Imran and Saira had put all the blame on Mommy Dearest, who had been found to be the dominant force in Zurich v Karim, but, as in that case, the manner in which the brother and sister had corruptly permitted Shamim to run the firm was enough to damn them. All three were culpable. Interim costs order of £75,000 made.

The Karims have the right to appeal the SDT decision and are apparently intending to do so.

[edit 13 June] This just gets better. See this newspaper story. Imran had a serious premiership footballer and Krystal habit. Saira set up Miss Nude UK with Nick Reynolds, the son of Great Train Robber Bruce ‘Butch’ Reynolds. Despite being on Sky TV, Miss Nude UK wasn’t enough to rescue the situation, particularly as Saira had also also put money into a ‘failed music business’.

Mind you, there was the alleged apartment in New York and the ‘large home in Esher’ (Ahh, fragrant Esher) to console her. Document shredding and claims of being authorised to take mortgage holders money (Eh?) were not enough of a defence.

After a series of raids beginning in 1999 investigators found £450,000 had been misappropriated from the proceeds of a house sale belonging to clients Mr K and Miss D.

A further £390,000 had been taken from mortgage cash advanced by Northern Rock to Mrs Binu Govindan, who sold her home in Brighton Road, Purley and was buying a property on Woodcote Valley Road.

I’ve said it before and will say it again, it is always the conveyancers you have to watch…

defendant

On the naughty step

Published
by
NL
on 1 June 2008
in whatever
. 2 Comments

naughty step badgeOn the naughty step this week is Susan Orton, a conveyancing assistant at Harold G Walker in Bournemouth, at which her husband was a senior partner. Mrs Orton made away with £79,655 from the firm’s client account over 2 years, after blowing £30,000 from the family savings.

In mitigation Mrs Orton blamed the stress and long hours of her job, saying that it caused her to seek relief on the fruit machines at the local Gala Bingo. Her counsel said:

Such was the stress that she turned to gambling and was out up to five nights a week spending up to £500 a night. She spent £100,000 of their own money.

Mrs Orton was jailed for 10 months and Mr Orton left the firm.

I’ve said it before, it is always the conveyancers you have to watch.

Butterfingers

Published
by
NL
on 8 April 2008
in whatever
. 2 Comments

In what must be probably the worst experience a paralegal could ever have, Penny Wadsworth has inadvertently caused the collapse of a 5 defendant, £100,000 drugs trial [Guardian Report]. The ‘Kennington Rastafarian Temple’ trial had been running for 4 weeks when a police officer recognised Wadsworth, a paralegal on the defence team. The officer recognised Wadsworth from earlier enquiries and recalled that she had made a telephone complaint about drug dealing at the Temple, prior to the raid and arrests.

Wadsworth had failed to disclose her complaint or its content to her firm, or the defence counsel. When defence counsel was informed, and told the client, unsurprisingly the client ‘felt he could no longer have complete confidence in the neutrality of his firm of solicitors’, as the judge put it.

The judge called Wadsworth to appear before the Court, but decided that, although the result of her non-disclosure was ‘catastrophic’ for the trial, no action would be taken against her. After the prosecution decided not to offer any evidence or to seek a retrial, the defendants were acquitted.

Oddly enough, Wadsworth had apparently worked for a city firm for 20 years before turning to a criminal firm. A rough introduction and I suspect she may now be an ex-paralegal. Although considering that she did achieve her client’s acquittal, maybe not.

One must have sympathy. It might not have been the birghtest course of (non)action she took, but we do all make errors of judgement at some point. The idea that such an error would result in a dressing down in open court and the collapse of a high profile trial is the stuff of sweat-soaked-blanket nightmares.

On the other hand, the irony content of the eventual effect of her complaint about drug dealing at the Temple is so overwrought as to be a ‘Tales of the Unexpected’ plot (a reference that few born after say 1975 will get. Strewth, I’m old.)

Badness in courts, of courts and of law lecturers

Published
by
NL
on 29 November 2007
in Legal Aid and whatever
. 0 Comments

A quick outline of a busy news day…

What Price JusticeThe Court of Appeal says that (some) provisions of the Legal Services Commission’s Unified Contract are unlawful, specifically the most sweeping of the unilateral amendment clauses. The judgment is pretty devastating, finding for the Law Society on all points of its appeal of the earlier Judicial Review finding and against the LSC on their appeal. As a sample:

The power to amend (in this contract) is better characterised as a power to rewrite the contract.

Permission for the LSC to appeal refused, costs against the LSC. The judgment is here [pdf] and the Law Society’s comment here. What this will mean in practice, we will have to see…

Leeds Magistrates Court is to be investigated for failure to execute bench warrants when Defendants turned up on other harges and other matters. BBC video here.

And then, managing to offend the laws of God, man and academia in one fell swoop, we have lay preacher, law lecturer and convicted fraudster Malcolm Edwards-Saye, the self-styled Lord Houghton. He was involved in a £51 million VAT carousel fraud and was also convicted of stealing £18,000 from PI claimants via Claims Direct. Worth noting that disclosure failures on the part of the Revenue and Customs Prosecution Office meant that another 8 defendants walked on the carousel fraud. Top work.

Ooops - disproportionate strike-out

Published
by
NL
on 5 November 2007
in Housing law
. 0 Comments

A certain amount of amusement has been circulating around London housing firms at the Court of Appeal judgment in London Borough of Southwark -v- Onayomake [2007] EWCA Civ 1426 (Bailii link, or link to WLR case note here, but may only be briefly freely available).

Or perhaps Schadenfreude would be the more accurate term. Mr Onayomake had a substantive defence and counterclaim to a possession claim on the basis of succession. Southwark said, slightly bizarrely, he was a tolerated trespasser. DJ Zimmels at Lambeth County Court gave directions for a fast track trial, including filing Pre Trial Checklists. The Defendant’s solicitors failed to file on time. A Case Management Conference was listed for a fortnight later. The Defendant’s representative was late. By the time they arrived, DJ Zimmels had already struck out the Defence and Counterclaim. An application for relief was then dismissed at the hearing of the (now undefended) claim for possession. A possession order was made.

Somewhat surprisingly, an appeal was dismissed by Mr Recorder Widdup, so onwards to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal held, quite rightly I think, that striking-out was a disproportionate sanction for the failure to file PTR and lateness by the legal representatives. Although a claim in negligence against the solicitors was an option for the Defendant, it hardly would compensate for the loss of his home. The DJ was plainly wrong and the Recorder should have said so.

Now, Hartnells took the case to the Court of Appeal. I am presuming, perhaps wrongly, that Hartnells weren’t the unfortunate firm the represented the Defendant in the possession claim. Granted that these things can happen to any of us, but in a mischievous spirit, does anybody know who did? [Edit - the Bailii Judgment identifies the unfortunate firm].  The second element of Schadenfreude, of course, concerns the DJ. Enough said.

Honest Guv, it’s a genuine da Vinci.

Published
by
NL
on 7 October 2007
in whatever
. 1 Comment

I am once more indebted to Victorian Maiden for noting the arrest of a senior partner in the recapture of the Madonna of the Yardwinder, violently lifted from Drumlanrig Castle four years ago.

Calum Jones of HBJ Gateley Wareing in Glasgow, a specialist in corporate finance and corporate insolvency, was apparently arrested in the course of a meeting with an insurer, a valuer and an art expert, and the painting was found in HBJ’s offices. HBJ say there was “an interesting, but benign, explanation” for Mr Jones’ involvement. Interesting, it should be. Mr Jones insists that he was helping with the painting’s ‘repatriation’.

VM wonders how difficult it is to say ‘give it back’. But the world of high end art theft and/or ransom is a very murky one, as the many recent cases involving paintings by Munch, Carravaggio and others tend to demonstrate. Once big money from insurance companies is involved, let alone the inherent shadiness of the art world, (oh and criminals) nothing is quite what it seems, including whether the painting is a Leonardo da Vinci at all.

For instance, what of the involvement of both the Serious Organised Crime Agency and the Scottish Crime and Drugs Enforcement Agency in the raid. Has SOCA incorporated the old Art Theft team? Was this a set up, or tip off? If so, by whom? Was the £1 million reward (presumably put up by the insurance company) involved?

What on earth was the painting doing on the premises of HBJ? That, by itself, would tend give a certain credence to Mr Jones’ version of affairs. It wouldn’t be the first time that a third party has acted as go between for the thieves and the insurers. But then what the hell was a corporate finance partner doing in this sort of set up?

Add in the second solicitor arrested, Marshall Ronald, who has, as VM notes, a very interesting history, and events get even murkier.

The Scottish police announced that the painting recovered has been examined and ‘found to be genuine‘. Well, for certain limited values of genuine. It is hotly disputed whether the painting is a Leonardo da Vinci, or a ’studio of…’. There are three versions of the painting in existence and Leonardo rarely if ever duplicated his own work. Many consider the Drumlanrig to be a ’studio of’, not a Leonardo. From the photos, I can see why. I’ll bet there have been some very intense discussions over insurance value, which the Duke of Buccleuch will have to repay if he wants the painting back.

This one should get even more unclear if and as the story comes out.

Busted

Published
by
NL
on 6 October 2007
in whatever
. 0 Comments

In one of the least surprising brassiere related decisions ever by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, Daniela Scotece has been struck off the roll.

Ms Scotece, an erstwhile criminal defence solicitor at the Nottingham Johnson Partnership, was convicted in April of passing cannabis to a client by smuggling it in to the cell at a Magistrates hearing. The cannabis was concealed in her bra, but that didn’t stop a sniffer dog. Possibly even worse, from the Court’s point of view, she had abused the judicial process to get her client to court.

For some reason the Guardian has now decided she hid the drugs in her knickers, but never mind. I did rather like the Judge at her trial reportedly saying ‘she had completely blurred the line of professional conduct‘. A bit beyond blurring, I’d have thought, as supplying illegal drugs isn’t really a professional grey area.

Also busted is the Government for failing to follow Cabinet Office guidelines in publishing the results of consultation on its proposals to restrict the powers of the Court of Appeal in criminal cases. The Government had failed to make public the fact that senior appeal court judges, the council of circuit judges and the Criminal Cases Review Commission all thought this was a cretinously bad idea.

The measures, restricting the powers of the Court to overturn a guilty verdict where there were procedural faults in the process if the Court still thinks that the Defendant did it, are going for a second reading in Parliament.

Let me just get this clear for myself. If you are convicted as the result of a flawed process - meaning that pre-trial or trial was not carried out properly - your conviction will not be overturned if the appeal court thinks you most likely did it anyway, which can only be on the basis of… well, the evidence in the flawed trial? Brilliant.

Enough already

Published
by
NL
on 20 September 2007
in whatever
. 2 Comments

My last post on the Hyman affair (at least unless or until something else interesting turns up) is just a pointer to this story, an ‘exclusive’ interview with Hyman’s client. I had missed this on the entirely justifiable basis that it was in the Mail on Sunday. It manages, in a quite glorious way, to make you loathe everyone involved in the whole saga.

Unsurprisingly I was right a week or two ago. Hyman’s client, the former ‘radio executive’, naturally being skint because ‘I had not worked since my marriage broke up’, is suing him. Ms Sanders Young demonstrates the creative flair that supported her media career by deftly avoiding cliche: ‘My life was turning into a Kafka novel’, she said.

But the overall reliability of the story may be judged by the assertion that Hyman didn’t know when he sent the fatal email that emails could be traced:

What he didn’t know, until Karen explained to him later, was that emails could be traced.

He walked into his legal chambers in some distress a couple of days later and resigned.

Nah. One doesn’t suddenly borrow an internet connection from a shop in the Tottenham Court Road to send the email if you don’t know emails can be traced.

A reminder that, as ever, when principles are lost, the circumstances are not dramatic, let alone glamorous, just tawdry.

Hyman and Doughty Street

Published
by
NL
on 19 September 2007
in whatever
. 14 Comments

Doughty Street Chambers have a press release on their front page about Bruce Hyman. It reads:

There have been several false press reports that Bruce Hyman, a barrister who has pleaded guilty to an attempt to pervert the course of justice, was a member of Doughty Street Chambers. Mr Hyman was in fact a pupil, attached to Doughty Street Chambers only for a few months of his training period, having successfully completed a 12-month pupillage at Blackstone Chambers. He resigned before he could be considered for membership of Chambers and nobody here had any inkling of his criminal behaviour.

Frankly they should have said so earlier, as the rest of us were left to make do with items such as this, this (third column from the left, bottom), this and this, some of which are from Doughty Street, all of which clearly identify Hyman with Doughty Street or ‘at’ Doughty Street.

Certainly rumours have been circulating about Hyman and Doughty Street since news of his guilty plea broke. That would have been the time to clarify matters.

Although this actually makes matters murkier. Some accounts say that Hyman only resigned from Chambers when told to by the Judge in the criminal proceedings. Does this mean he was still a pupil at that point? Was he therefore a pupil when he was acting in the case that was his downfall?

Nice smearing of Blackstone Chambers in the press release, though.

[Edit 20/09/07. In the comments to this post, a barrister with knowledge of the history has confirmed that Hyman was a pupil, probably third six, and given some background to the mitigation argument and Hyman's resignation from Chambers.]

Coming soon - Hyman, the Prison Diaries

Published
by
NL
on 19 September 2007
in whatever
. 2 Comments

So Bruce Hyman got 12 months for perverting the course of justice, thanks VM for the details. The Beeb has a photo of Hyman looking furtive, as well he might.

That may be longer than other media people have received for looking at child porn, but I have to agree with VM that, considering Hyman was entirely prepared to see the opponent he framed go to prison, it doesn’t seem like quite enough. Perhaps a new charge of ’stamping repeatedly on justice’s weeping face while laughing maniacally’ should be introduced for these occasions.

One presumes he will now be disbarred without further ado.

Nemesis and cab ranks

Published
by
NL
on 19 September 2007
in job and whatever
. 5 Comments

I am indebted to Victorian Maiden (QC) at Ruthie’s Law for the news that Bruce Hyman is to be sentenced tomorrow, 19 September. He may make history as the first barrister for 800 years to be sent to prison for perverting the course of justice.

Hyman’s erstwhile chambers, Doughty Street, are preserving a wall of silence and it is only google traces that now identify him with the, err, doughty defenders of human rights. I share VM’s view that Doughty Street need to at the very least acknowledge that this has happened. On this occasion at least, silence is not the dignified option.

But VM’s views on Chambers espousing a position, and with it limiting who they act for, gave me something to think about.

Firstly, in terms of my own situation. Granted, solicitors don’t have the same ‘act for all-comers’ principle, but I am now involved in some acting for landlord cases where so far I have always been on the tenant side. In terms of practice and indeed law, this has been interesting. And, as a frankly pretty damn good tenant-side lawyer, poacher turned gamekeeper comes easily.

However, I came into law intending to be a legal aid practitioner and so it remains, possibly foolishly. Am I wrong to limit my potential future clients in this way? Does it impede my practice or make me a worse solicitor (to be)? Does it interfere with a duty to the Court? I think the answer is no on all counts, except in terms of money coming in. The crucial question is does this affect my duty to the clients? Would I, for instance, subjugate the client’s interests to principle or a political point? And of course, the answer is no, absolutely not.

Does this make me a better person, or rather make me think that I am a better person? No. Only a pompous idiot or first year student would equate trying to act in accord with their political or social views with their own personal virtue. A secular protestantism, which is never pretty.

For the Bar, some things are different. As VM puts it ‘barristers should act for all comers’. This is indeed an honourable principle - barristers serve the law above all, albeit in the interests of the client of the moment. Doughty Street’s avowed commitment to ‘human rights and civil liberties‘, for VM at least, cuts against the all comers principle, presumably by making them incapable of arguing cases against human rights and civil liberties with any appearance of conviction.

On the one hand, I can certainly appreciate the argument. Perhaps even more so than with a solicitor, a barrister’s client needs to know that the advice and representation that they receive will be with regard to their interest from an independent view of the law. The all-comers principle ensures the independence of the barrister.

On the other hand, despite VM’s stout defence of principle, the practice is frequently at odds with it. We all know about criminal barristers who don’t take legal aid cases, or commercial barristers who won’t get out of bed for a brief fee under five figures, or Counsel who only act for local authorities, never the citizen. Acting for all comers often means acting for all comers who can afford the fee. Just try getting a taxi to go south of the river after eleven pm to see where the ‘cab rank’ gets you.

I take it as read that such practice would also attract VM’s ire, as the only distinction that I can see is between an overt (perhaps smug) profession of approach and a more covert (certainly hypocritical and also smug) selection of clients.

But such sniping aside, I am, quite genuinely, not sure about the continuing importance of the all-comers principle. I fully understand the value of the principle, but what if it was acknowledged to have pretty much gone? Does a barrister who, in covert practice or in overt pursuit of professed values, tends to act for certain classes of client have a lesser knowledge of law, or expertise in advocacy? I see no reason why that should be the case. I also don’t see any issue for the barrister’s independence that hasn’t already been put in play by Conditional Fee Agreements, for example. I am undecided and open to argument on the point.

As an old, Chablis pickled lefty, though, I would have to agree that there is nothing so annoying as a sanctimonious liberal.

The summer of dodgy lawyers continues.

Published
by
NL
on 26 August 2007
in whatever
. 7 Comments

An extraordinary tale in today’s Observer.

Bruce Hyman, a practising barrister, has pleaded guilty to attempting to pervert the course of justice. The full story is at the link, but what apparently happened was that Hyman, representing a client in a family case (over access rights), went to a Tottenham Court Road computer shop and emailed a bogus judgment to the other side - the father, appearing in person. The email purported to be from Families Need Fathers and the judgment apparently supportive of the father’s case.

The father naturally presented the judgment at the Court hearing, at which point Hyman pounced, suggesting the father was responsible for forging the judgment. The father was left facing a charge of perverting the course of justice and costs.

Hyman’s downfall only came about because the father managed to trace the IP address of the origin of the email and obtained CCTV footage from the computer shop for the relevant day, which, to his astonishment, showed Hyman using a laptop. Finally, he managed to get the police interested.

Hyman didn’t have a family practice and was apparently acting for a friend and business partner in the case. Reportedly, he continued to work on the case after being arrested.

Just to keep it topical, Hyman is the chairman of a big media production company (and a mate of Clive Anderson) and had relatively recently turned to the law (This was one of his first cases). It seems that a media attitude to veracity is a transferable skill.

Choice quote from an anonymous ‘acquaintance’:

He was in love with the law in the same way that some middle-aged men are in love with the idea of being a rock star.

Nearly Legal is fairly sure that his own ‘middle-aged’ turn to the law is not the equivalent of air guitar and inappropriately tight trousers, but who knows?

[Edit. Google suggests that Hyman was involved with mental health law and at Doughty Street Chambers. He does not/no longer exists on Doughty Street's website. For anyone who doesn't know, Doughty Street is a major Human Rights Chambers. Oh dear.]

It’s always the conveyancers you have to watch…

Published
by
NL
on 20 August 2007
in whatever
. 0 Comments

Not content with passing off ‘he was discussing insurance in my office’ as an alibi for an alleged offence of abduction and extortion by a client in 2005, Shahid Pervez, a Scottish ex-conveyancer now convicted of perverting the course of justice, also fell foul of the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal in the same year for ‘accounting malpractice and not registering title deeds timeously’. He was struck off the roll for ten years. It was probably lucky for the alleged offender that he wasn’t actually arranging insurance.

And, in passing, it also appears we have a new offence of demanding money with masturbatory aids. Tell me, is that a gun in your pocket or are you just pleased?

Champagne does not affect professional judgment

Published
by
NL
on 19 June 2007
in job and whatever
. 0 Comments

Or so says David Pannick QC.

Somewhere back in the mists of time, I suggested that Chambers hosting schmoozing parties didn’t have much effect on solicitors’ choice of barrister, at least in my experience.

David Pannick’s response to a rather sniffy Bar Standards Board consultation paper on the perceived propriety of chambers getting solicitors squiffy for free begs to differ at the same time as agreeing with me. The article is truly hilarious, if not perhaps wholly deliberately so.

Beginning, naturally, with a classical quote (in translation, alas), and followed by a reference to H. L. Mencken, this being written for a newspaper after all, we move right to the heart of the matter. I summarise and comment:romans

Whatever the public might think of barristers stuffing Ferrero Roche down solicitor’s gullets is neither here nor there.

Quite right, there is no privity of contract with the great unwashed, after all, and there is no need to ensure their trust in one’s appearance as an independent member of the Bar as long as the client can’t prove anything.

It is also ludicrous to think that a solicitor would have their professional judgment in choosing Counsel impaired by said Counsel brandishing tickets to Centre Court and a magnum of ‘poo. Where is the evidence?

Again, quite right. Solicitors are reknown for their utter lack of self-interest and their ability to set aside any thought of strawberries and cream accompanied by the thighs of [insert tennis player of choice] in the greater interest of their client.

So, given that solicitors are, by definition, uncorrupted by the temple of delights that Chambers, genii-like, lay before them, why do it? Well, and I quote:

The object of hospitality [...] is rather to communicate the expertise of the barristers to the solicitor in a relaxing and enjoyable environment, so that the solicitor can be better informed about whether particular barristers have the qualities that are needed by the solicitor’s clients.

Of course. The way I prefer to exercise my professional judgment is to be enjoyably relaxed for free at some length so that I am in a suitable state for a barrister to better inform me as to his or her qualities. I feel I make my best judgments in this way, so I seek such enjoyable and informative relaxation at every opportunity.

David Pannick QC is quite right to suggest that marketing is important, and particularly so for the junior Bar, and also to suggest that the Bar Standards Council has come over all Patricia Hewitt in this consultation. But, much though I enjoy the (usually lukewarm - standards have slipped) champagne, might I suggest Chambers could consider more cost effective marketing, one that doesn’t have the downside of potentially making the solicitor - counsel relationship look a bit sad to the punters?

Please, No. It’s just wrong.

Published
by
NL
on 25 April 2007
in tech and whatever
. 6 Comments

My jaw dropped at this post from Lo-fi librarian. You must see the post for lo-fi’s screenshots. Also in the Times Online.

Field Fisher Waterhouse have opened an office in Second Life.

This is just wrong in so many ways.

The media hype about ‘real world’ businesses and politicians setting up in Second Life has faded after the first rush about 6 months ago, so the publicity value is low - I didn’t see mention of it before yesterday in the mainstream media and that a minor one - so it becomes a classic too-late jump on the bandwagon by a law firm.

And then, in a virtual world where architectural feats of imagination far beyond the dreams of those bound by gravity and engineering are possible, Field Fisher Waterhouse appear to have built (or had built for them) a generic late modern corporate office building (with roof garden for entertaining clients, naturally). Thusly, the message is ‘Lawyers - they’re not too far behind the times but wherever they go they spread corporate greyness’.

Thirdly, as SQMLaw points out, Second Life as a virtual realm, rather than as a company property, is not subject to the laws of any jurisdiction - that is more or less the point - except for the rules set down and policed by Linden, who own and run it (despite vociferous objections from the inhabitants at times). However, given that the currency of Second Life - Lindens - is convertible into dollars, it is probably only a matter of time before questions of jurisdiction emerge.

Lastly - to the suggestion that this could be a virtual meeting place for the firm - do they want their trainees turning up as Daleks, purple baboons and winged dominatrixes? Or to have a crucial meeting gatecrashed by a group of furries? (As I understand it, privacy is a only matter of consent or obscurity in Second Life, but I could be wrong).

I mean what the hell is the point of a virtual world that is exactly like the physical world, complete with Gap, Nike, accountants and lawyers, only with less gravity?

Although less gravity would be nice.

Leaving the territory of thought

Published
by
NL
on 3 March 2007
in whatever
. 3 Comments

Not that there isn’t a valid discussion to be had, but did the Law Society’s Fiona Woolf really have to announce that the Law Society is looking to encourage a discussion about flexible working and job satisfaction in these words?

And so, given its ever-increasing importance, the Law Society has taken the bold decision to enter, for the first time, the territory of thought leadership – to facilitate a better understanding the issues around staff retention and job satisfaction by exploring factors that help to meet the needs of not just fee earners but their supervisors and employers too.

Dear God in Heaven. What did the poor long-suffering English language do to deserve this? And who can we shoot to stop it happening again?

I used to be an academic and what I don’t know about jargon-ridden obfuscation can be written in 18 point on the smallest of post-it notes, but this is worse than any of the sins I ever committed (and for which I am eternally damned). It is banality posing as iconoclasm, the bleeding obvious clothing itself as professional insight and the tragically overdue flouncing about as ‘bold’ innovation.

What does this piffle actually say? A translation:

‘Given its ever increasing importance’

‘It might be a bit late in the day’

‘Taken the bold decision’

‘a lot of firms are going to ignore us’

‘the territory of thought leadership’

‘we’re going to suggest some ideas’

‘facilitate a better understanding’

‘point out the bleeding obvious’

‘exploring factors’

‘let other people also point out the bleeding obvious’

‘help to meet the needs of not just fee earners but their supervisors and employers too’

‘it won’t cost too much and might save you money in the longer term, maybe’.

So the whole thing boils down to

‘It might be a bit late in the day, but we thought we’d try to offer a few obvious pointers to firms about job satisfaction and why people leave. We know that some firms won’t like this or listen at all, but it might not cost too much’.

It is impressive that the same standard of language is maintained throughout the whole article, culminating in the glorious

There are great examples of not just lowering recruitment costs but of improving productivity and profitability as a result of debating the issues and matching expectations.

which sounds like it should make sense, but becomes more and more meaningless the longer you look at it. Excellent.

Ooops.

Published
by
NL
on 19 February 2007
in whatever
. 0 Comments

In retrospect, yesterday might not have been the best day to have been posting about briefless barristers.

Things fall apart…

Published
by
NL
on 15 February 2007
in job and whatever
. 0 Comments

the centre cannot hold. Not a good week, all in all.

When the legal highlight of the week is some scurrilous story about the DPP and the Criminal Bar Association spokesperson enjoying illict souvlaki together, then we are in trouble. Although two details stood out.

A £2 tip on a £26 bill? That is taking limitations on state legal expenditure into the realms of gracelessness.

The other detail is that new entrants to the Bar are apparently presented with negligees and a place to sleep. Perhaps I should have gone to the Bar after all.

The slow unravelling of legal aid continues as the criminal system is facing a work to rule strike by legal aid solicitors. Although the aims are certainly laudable, this makes me wince slightly at the appropriation of trade union terminology to describe the actions of middle class professionals. Still, la luta continua.

Also miserable to see, a senior County Court Judge has described the civil court system, at least at County Court level as ‘in crisis’, due to staff cuts and lack of training. It doesn’t surprise me that this is coming from a London based Judge, given my own experience.

I have considerable sympathy for court staff, who have been through a rough time, with worse to come. But it has been noticeable that mistakes and failures have been on the increase even over the last year. I’d have to be honest, when the court apparently loses an application - sent to a Judge for a time estimate and never seen again, for instance - it is bloody annoying, particularly when the matter is time critical. The usual response of ‘we’ll look into this and get back to you’ never results in getting back to me. This has happened a fair few times. Then very often, orders are not drawn up and sent out. Hearings are cancelled or shifted to another court at the very last moment, as in the morning of the hearing, which is fun for client, Counsel and us. We haven’t had a major, case-affecting issue yet, but it is a distinct possibility. Quite what happens then, e.g. liability for extra costs incurred, is a moot point.

And then very sadly, there is this story about Matthew Courtney, a Freshfields associate. I wouldn’t presume to speculate on what might be involved in Mr Courtney’s death, but the back story of life as a magic circle trainee/associate is illuminating and depressing. 2400 lawyers, 450 of which are partners (and likely to be fewer in future if current trends persist). So, at the very best, a 1 in 4-and-a-bit chance of making partner for each associate. This is starting to look like a pyramid scheme.

[Interesting followup at Legal Week. (Thanks Charon). The comment from 'a rival firm' that the average billable hours expected would be 1600-1800 hours per year means an expectation, as an average, of about 34-35 hours per week billable, which is taking no account of holiday, statutory days off, etc.. So about 7 hours per workday billable hours, regardless of holidays, as an expected average. Which, should one actually take leave entitlement and statutory holidays, equates to pretty much 8 hours per day billable. Guesstimating a ratio of billable to non billable hours at generous 4:1 (although god knows what these firms count as billable), that is a 10 hour workday, every workday. And that is the average hours expected. Average doesn't make partner, of course...]

At least as a wannabe legal aid trainee, I’m spared all that. In fact, I’m spared even the challenge and competitiveness of applying for posts, there being none.

Sex, Lies and videotapes redux

Published
by
NL
on 10 February 2007
in whatever
. 0 Comments

And the case is back (scroll down a bit).

Yes, the Appeal Court has quashed Roselane Driza’s conviction and ordered a retrial, on the basis of new evidence. Welcome back Judge Khan, Judge J and the publicity shy Brazilian.

Oh, for pity’s sake

Published
by
NL
on 19 June 2006
in whatever
. 0 Comments

Vera Baird says she was wrong to say that judges are liberal wusses. Attorney General says ‘ok that’s all right then and some sentences are too lenient’. Who knew the bench would snap back?

Meanwhile, the prisons will be as full as a commuter train in 12 weeks time.

After a fortnight of intense political debate over sentencing, the prison population, which is now rising by 148 a week, hit a record of 77,785 on Friday - with room for only a further 1,715 inmates. “We are looking at a system where prison numbers are rising inside what is already a hugely pressured area. That may hit the buffers soon at a point where there are not any more spaces,” warned Ms Owers. [The Guardian]

And plans for early release have been put on hold because the probation service can’t cope with its current load, let alone anything else.

It’s all going awfully well, don’t you think?