By popular demand, on 10 June, 2013, Lucy Scott-Moncrieff, President of the Law Society of England and Wales, will be making a special visit to speak directly to members of the society on current issues of concern to the profession before her term of office ends. Topics up for discussion will no doubt include the impact of LAPSO; issues relating to crime and family work and the Jackson Reforms, amongst others.

More details and application form can be found in the link above.

eLawyers Panel Invitation – Mar 2013

Tens of thousands of support staff, secretaries and administrative staff are set to lose their jobs as the effect of the justice reforms bites.

Martin Coyne, managing partner at Ralli Solicitors who is heading up the campaign said,

“From personal experience in my firm alone we have had to make redundancies and everyday colleagues of mine, in other businesses across the legal industry, tell me of the job losses they are having to make; thousands of people across the UK are being forced into unemployment.”

“We have launched this Job Loss Counter so the government and the Law Society can see the direct effect they are having on people in the legal industry. If we were a car manufacturer the government would step in to protect jobs but not, it seems, in the legal industry. The Law Society has woefully let its members down by not fighting to protect jobs in an industry recognised around the world as the finest.”

“The effect on small law firms and those who work within it will be catastrophic, so each day when people look at the job losses I hope the government and M.P.s will remember that these will be their constituents who will blame them at the next election for ignoring them.”

The Job Loss Counter will gather information from managing partners at law firms and companies who support the legal industry.

The Job Loss Counter starting total, as of 20th March, is 2483 job losses. 

A petition calling on the Government to stop any further changes to the legal industry and protect jobs can found at the following link:  Petition to protect the legal industry and its jobs

Legal and Democratic Services

Practice Manager

Ref: COM13/20979

Fixed Term Post, initially for 6 months

Oldham Council is a dynamic, co-operative Council awarded LGC’s most improved Council 2012. The Council is focussed on significant regeneration in which the Legal Services team will be an integral part. An opportunity has arisen for the right applicant to drive forward Legal and Democratic Services ambitions as the team’s Practice Manager.

You will be responsible for developing strategic vision, leadership and direction in the management, delivery and improvement of the legal service and have a proven track record of driving through efficiencies and production of business cases to facilitate income generation. You will support the Borough Solicitor to ensure that the business unit’s budget is monitored effectively and that corrective action be taken to deliver the service to the Council as well as provide strategic direction, support, management and leadership to ensure that service plans are in place to deliver an efficient, value for money service which meets customers changing service needs.

The successful candidate will line manage and supervise a team of business administrators and secretaries and liaise with Legal staff in compliance with agreed council policy. You will also have responsibility for the collation, production and delivery of monthly business reporting from SOLCASE and Cor Vu in the achievement of performance excellence, budgetary pressures and other related service information.

You will also oversee the SOLCASE case management system so working knowledge of this case management system would be preferred. You will also co-ordinate the annual Lexcel accreditation process, including the Practice Manual and Annual Risk Audits.

Salary: £31,754 – £35,430 p.a.  Hours: 36.40 per week.  Based: Civic Centre, West Street, Oldham, OL1 1UL

Closing date: 25^th March 2013

Shortlisting date: 29^th March 2012

 Please note the council has introduced a requirement for employees to take three days unpaid leave (pro rata for part time and term time only employees) during the leave year. In your first year the number of days that you will be required to take will be in proportion to the completed calendar months of service between your commencement date and 31^st March 2013.

Payment for these 3 additional days will be deducted from pay in equal amounts from annual salary at the rate of 1.15% of your gross contractual pay per calendar month. This will be effective until 31^st March 2015.

Oldham Council Practice Manager post

From Monday, 29^th October, 2012 the following changes will occur:-

All Chancery and Insolvency process including listing will be dealt with by one group of staff.  This team will be led by Julie Bagnall who has previous experience of Chancery business, having previously undertaken the role of Specialist Listing Officer.  The other members of the team are as follows:- Fouzia Ahmed-Mann; Claire Galvin; Nicola Grumbridge; Sheona Miles; Jenny Panter; Candice Stone; Barry Warburton.

All Administrative Court, Mercantile, TCC and QB process will be dealt with by a separate team.  This team will be led by Rose Shaw, who presently has responsibility for the Administrative court and HCJ’s listing and has previous experience of TCC and Mercantile business.  The other members of the team are as follows:- Katy Davison; Ged Kelly; Joe Mawson; Isobel Rich; Tony Standen; Les Winstanley.

Chancery & Insolvency staff can be contacted as follows:-

Administrative Court, TCC and Mercantile staff can be contacted as follows:-

 Notice from Manchester Civil Justice Centre

This document has been issued by the President of the Queen’s Bench Division and the Chancellor of the High Court to give notice of an important amendment which will be made to CPR 3.12(1) to change the rule currently in the Statutory Instrument.

Costs Management is being introduced as an important part of the reforms arising from Lord Justice Jackson’s Review of Civil Litigation Costs.  He identified a general view that costs management would not be appropriate for the high value cases which generally pass through the Commercial Court. He therefore considered that whether costs management should be adopted in Commercial Court litigation should be left to the discretion of judges in individual cases but said he encouraged judges actively to adopt costs management in any lower value cases which are brought in the Commercial Court. This led to the Admiralty and Commercial Courts being excepted from the costs management rules by the version of rule 3.12(1) which was included in The Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2013 to come into effect in April 2013.

On further reflection, it has been recognised that it is undesirable for an exception from automatic costs management to apply only to the Admiralty and Commercial Courts, when in many commercial cases there is an element of concurrent jurisdiction between that court, the Chancery Division, the Technology and Construction Court and the London Mercantile Court, all of which function in the Rolls Building. Equally, outside London, the Chancery Division, Technology and Construction Court and Mercantile Courts have a similar concurrent jurisdiction.

Given these concurrent jurisdictions, the Civil Procedure Rule Committee at its meeting on 8 February 2013 approved the following amended rule 3.12(1) to allow for a similar exemption from automatic costs management in all of those jurisdictions;

(1) This Section and Practice Direction 3E apply to all multi-track cases commenced on or after 1st April 2013, except –

(a) cases in the Admiralty and Commercial Courts;

(b) such cases in the Chancery Division as the Chancellor of the High Court may direct; and

(c) such cases in the Technology and Construction Court and the Mercantile

Courts as the President of the Queen’s Bench Division may direct, unless the proceedings are the subject of fixed costs or scale costs or the court otherwise orders. This Section and the Practice Direction 3E will apply to any other proceedings (including applications) where the court so orders.

This rule will be included in a further Statutory Instrument which it is intended will be made so as to come into force on 1 April 2013.

At the same time a direction will be made under the amended CPR 3.12(1) in these terms:

Pursuant to CPR rule 3.12(1)(b) and (c), the Chancellor of the High Court directs that in the Chancery Division and the President of the Queen’s Bench Division directs that in the Technology and Construction Court and Mercantile Courts, Section II of CPR 3 and Practice Direction 3E shall not apply to cases where at the date of the

first case management conference the sums in dispute in the proceedings exceed £2,000,000, excluding interest and costs, except where the court so orders.

The Master of the Rolls has been consulted on and agrees with this direction. Parity of approach in relation to Costs Management between these Courts is considered to be important to avoid any inappropriate forum shopping as parties get used to the new rules. The revised rule is an interim measure, as it is thought that the case for any exception should be re-visited, given that under the rules there is a discretion which might be exercised in particular cases not to make a costs management order, which could deal with any remaining concerns as to the appropriateness of costs management in high value cases. Also, after that review of the position, it will be desirable for the principle finally decided on to be incorporated in rule 3.12(1) itself rather than in a direction.

Subject to the limited exceptions which will be dealt with in the direction, it is envisaged that costs management orders would be made in all cases except where there is good reason not to do so. Even when the exceptions in the rule and the direction apply, the use of costs management should always be considered. 

Dated 18 February 2013

Sir John Thomas, President of the Queen’s Bench Division Sir Terence Etherton, Chancellor of the High Court

 NOTE TO ALL PRACTITIONERS FROM JUDGE STEPHEN STEWART QC

The event, taking place on 7 March at Lancaster University, will give legal practitioners and law enforcement colleagues the opportunity to discuss the proposed approach for judges to take in sentencing rape, sexual assault and offences involving indecent images of children.

Sentencing Council member John Crawforth, formerly Chief Executive for the Greater Manchester Probation Trust, will be chairing the event.

The new guideline is proposing a broader approach to assessing the impact on victims, as well as considering the full context of an offender’s behaviour and motivation, such as abuse of trust. It also reflects the increased use of technology in offences involving indecent images of children, sexual exploitation and grooming.

The Sentencing Council is looking to legal practitioners to feed in their experience in how offending is developing and whether the factors identified in the draft guideline are right. 

Please respond by 1 March to info@sentencingcouncil.gsi.gov.uk if you wish to attend.

See the consultation at: http://sentencingcouncil.judiciary.gov.uk/consultations-current.htm.  

To request a hard copy or further information email the Office of the Sentencing Council.

Timing and venue:  7 March 2013, 10.00 – 12.00hrs

Lancaster University, Bailrigg, Lancaster, LA1 4YW

“MASS agrees with many of the issues and findings highlighted in AVIVA’s release “CAR INSURANCE PREMIUMS COULD FALL BY £1.5BN IF INSURERS HANDLE CLAIMS DIRECTLY.”  Premiums are too high and fraudulent whiplash claims are having a negative impact on hard hit motorists.”

“We must not forget the needs and rights of the innocent accident victims. The ABI estimate that 7% of claims are fraudulent. It is vital that whatever reforms may be made to the system, the 93% of innocent claimants are not prevented from seeking justice and compensation for their injuries.”

“There is opportunity for fraud in the system and MASS agrees with AVIVA that CMCs must be more heavily regulated and also that no claimant should receive any compensation without a fully independent medical – no medical, no damages.”

“We must not have a system where claimants have to deal directly with insurers whose priority will be to keep their own costs down. This would restrict access to the independent legal advice essential to insuring that genuine accident victims receive the compensation they deserve.”

Enter the debate at: MASS Response to AVIVA

As you know the Law Society has very serious concerns about the potential impact of the Government’s premature  implementation of their civil justice reforms on the legal services sector and on access to justice.

I have raised our concerns directly with the Secretary of Sate for Justice Chris Grayling and the Junior Justice Minister Helen Grant and will be meeting with Helen Grant to discuss our concerns in greater detail in the coming weeks.

However, it is vital that we let Parliament and the Ministry of Justice know the extent to which the unnecessarily premature  implementation of these reforms will impact upon solicitors’ firms as businesses and consequently, on the ability of members of the public to seek legitimate legal redress.

The Society’s Government and Parliamentary Affairs and Law Reform teams have therefore produced a ‘Campaigner Briefing’ [links to Law Society webpage], which provides details of how to lobby your local MP directly on this issue. In particular, the briefing contains information about requesting that your local MP raises the issue with the Secretary of State directly via Justice Question Time in the House of Commons. The next Justice questions are scheduled to take place on Tuesday 5 February, so please do consider contacting your MP soon.

I do hope that you are able to support the Society’s lobbying efforts on this issue. If you do make contact with your local MP, could you please inform Richard Heinrich (020 7316 5527 / Richard.Heinrich@lawsociety.org.uk) in the Society’s Government and Parliamentary Affairs Unit.

Lucy Scott-Moncrieff