Virtual Courts for Virtual Lawyers

The Government has recently unveiled proposals for a much faster and high tech Criminal Justice system. This is a development of the fast track procedures introduced during last years’ riots. The plan is to have courts sitting out of hours and at venues; such a community centres. Defendants will appear by video link as will witnesses.

Any measure which makes our justice system quicker and more efficient is to be welcomed. But how far will this go? The Law Society’s Criminal Justice Chair, Richard Atkinson, points out the dangers in such virtual courts where the Defendant might never have to make a personal appearance. Where does the Defendants’ Lawyer go? Do they remain with the accused at the Prison thus losing the opportunity to discuss the case with their opponent – a vital part of any court based litigation? Or do they go to court and leave the accused without the facility of discussing the case with his own lawyer.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/18/virtual-courts-speed-justice

This is a valid concern. Lawyers, for all their other skills, cannot be in two places at the same time. Now there may be a time when Virtual Lawyers will be able to appear by hologram in many different places. But we are not there yet!

http://thestevecornforthblog.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/virtual-lawyer.html

I can see a dangerous scenario developing where Virtual Courts are seen as a cheap alternative to the real thing. Why not have all courts operating without the inconvenient presence of the parties or even the lawyers. We can all conduct our litigation from the comfort of our own living rooms.

The difficulty with all this is that it ignores the real world. Cases are often resolved by all parties coming together, around a table or at court. This involves complex discussions and major decisions. They are not going to happen over a video link or any other virtual form of communication.

I am all for modernising procedures but not at the cost of justice.

As John Atkinson says in his article –

‘A more efficient justice system is possible, but the government needs to recognise that speed does not always equate to efficiency and efficiency should never be promoted over justice.’

Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights says that a person is entitled to a fair trial. It could be that a trial in which any party cannot access his lawyer in unfair.

www.eadsolicitors.co.uk

A Graduation, An inspiration and a Reflection

I felt like I was turning the clock back 30 years yesterday when I was a guest at the Liverpool University Graduation Ceremony for Law Graduates at the Liverpool Philharmonic Hall. So I donned the cap and gown along with the Presidents Jewel - felt a bit self conscious to be honest – and joined the fun.

I have mentioned before about those moments when you recall why you went into law in the first place. Well there was certainly such a moment when Mrs. Gee Walker was presented with her Honorary Doctorate for the anti-racism work of the Anthony Walker Trust. Few of us in Liverpool can forget the terrible events in July 2005 when Anthony was the victim of a violent racist murder. 

His mother, Gee Walker, subsequently stunned the world by saying that on the basis of her Christian faith she forgave the killers. She repeated that in her acceptance speech yesterday. She has also worked tirelessly through the trust named after her son, to combat racism. She is an inspiration to us all.

What was particularly moving was when she said that Anthony had wanted to study law and so this could well have been his day rather then hers. Her advice to the students was - “I encourage you to get better in life – don’t get angry, don’t get bitter.”

I have to say that I was glad that I was there.

After Mrs. Walker we had the main graduation ceremony. Normally this is just a flow of name after name after name as each graduate has their moment. But on this occasion I couldn’t help thinking what the future holds for them. There must have been over a hundred students embarking on their new life in the law. And it is not going to be easy. They have huge student debts. There is a shortage of training contract and pupilage places and there is the abolition of the minimum salary which means that after all the hard work, those who find contracts, could work for a pittance for two years.

http://thestevecornforthblog.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/law-career-for-rich.html

It is far harder for this generation of young lawyers than it was for us. The students I saw were clearly from a cross section of society. How long that remains the case is uncertain. We could end up back in the days when only the children of the wealthy end up as lawyers. That cannot be good for society.

But then it was also clear that this was a strong group of intelligent and hard working young people. So they are the future of the law and I am confident that they will have the strength and imagination to deal with all of these hurdles.

www.eadsolicitors.co.uk

Law in a trolley? A challenge ahead.

Throughout most of my years as a solicitor there was one non negotiable fact of life. Only solicitors could own solicitors’ firms. This was to protect the independence of the legal profession from outside influence.

All of this has changed over he last few years. Firstly it became possible to have a limited outside ownership. This was the precursor to the Alternative Business Structure which became permissible under the Legal Services Act 2007 which came into force last year. It is now possible for law firms to be entirely owned by outside interests – subject to approval by regulators. This has become known as Tesco Law, based on the idea of the popular supermarket providing legal services to customers. In fact Tesco’s have not to date, showed any interest.

But other big players have thrown their hat in the ring; most notably the Co-op who are operating as Co-Operative Legal Services. It is likely that many other household names will follow suit. I have already mentioned the plans by Eddie Stobart to offer barrister services –

http://thestevecornforthblog.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/eddie-sobart-jumping-on-legal-bandwagon.html

So does this mean the end of the High Street Solicitors’ Firm? I don’t think so, although it certainly poses new challenges. Challenges can improve quality. If I want my firm to compete with mega rich PLCs it will only be because my firm does a better job and is more reliable. Even in the cut throat retail world there are niche, quality providers who have done well. Will clients who need legal assistance trust a big brand just because it is familiar? Time will tell but there is work to be done which might ultimately benefit consumers.

One major concern about outside ownership is that this will mean outside control and therefore a loss of independence. This seems to have been the view of the profession in the USA and Germany and most recently France whose profession has firmly rejected the idea –

http://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-news/france-says-non-abs

I was recently at a dinner in Dublin where a Minister was promoting a similar idea and it was definitely not popular with the guests, again because of a loss if independence. In England and Wales those arguments are over. ABSs are here and are here to stay.

I predict that we will see a mix in the future. There will be Hyper Firms, even Tesco will get on board eventually. But there will also be modern and imaginative law firms who will still offer an excellent service and maintain the trust of their clients. There will even be Virtual Lawyers who may outshine all the rest!

But I am Mr. Half-Full by nature. Interesting times are ahead…

 

www.eadsolicitors.co.uk

Obstetric Care - is bigger better?

Of all the Medical Negligence cases that I have done over the years the most distressing are those that relate to child birth and neonatal care. This should be a time a celebration and in the vast majority of cases it is. There are however those rare cases where something goes wrong. I have seen cases where babies suffer tragic brain injuries due to lack of oxygen and suffer life long disabilities. These cases are few and far between but when they happen the consequences are devastating.

If there is any area of medicine which should be given a top priority it is this.

There are proposals from one expert that there should be a small number of ‘centres of excellence’ with a strong concentration of consultants to ensure the best possible care.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/jul/14/maternity-units-care-doctor

The idea is to reduce the number of obstetric departments and concentrate the funding in larger centres that are able to offer high quality care. It sounds good. Who would object to improving care?

But there is also a downside. Fewer centres inevitably mean closure of units and the loss of local facilities. It does not seem that long ago that the community midwife visited mothers on her bike and was there when the baby was delivered at home. So will the loss of local facilities mean a less personal service? This is the concern of Mary Newburn from the National Childbirth Trust –

"We are concerned that very large hospital units can seem like baby factories to parents: impersonal and preoccupied with pushing mothers and babies through the system, that people are processed like components in a factory, and that some don't get personalised care."

This is a finely balanced argument. I can see the concerns of mothers who feel that they will lose a locally available service. Some may have to travel long distances. On the other hand I have seen the terrible consequences of things going wrong which suggests that anything that improves standards is a good thing.

I have to say that my concern is that this will all be about saving money. Closing units is associated with cuts. And if the welfare of the newborn is placed at risk for economic reasons then the proposals should be vigorously opposed. The final decision should be with local health providers to decide the best means of providing care in their area.

Such decisions should not be left to politicians.

http://www.eadsolicitors.co.uk/medical-negligence-solicitors.aspx

Dying of thirst..in a hospital .. in this century??

Twenty Two year old Kane Gorny battled numerous health problems. He had survived a brain tumour which left him with a tendency to be aggressive. He also suffered from a diabetic condition which also caused him to be aggressive and also to have an inability to conserve water.

His treatment for these conditions had included steroids. A known side effect of steroids is weakening of the bones. This led to him going into St. George’s Hospital in London for a hip replacement operation in May 2009. Apart from his complex medical history this should have been a straightforward operation.

During this admission he became aggressive and was sedated and placed in a side room. His fluid levels dropped causing him to develop a desperate thirst. He was not given the medication that he needed. At one point he became so desperate that he called the police. His cries for help were attributed to behavioural problems. Eventually the seriousness of his plight was noticed but it was too late and he died shortly afterwards of dehydration.

In other words he died of thirst in a UK hospital in 2009.

This is one of the worst cases of neglect that I have come across. And it led to strong words from a Coroner yesterday who said –

"Kane was undoubtedly let down by incompetence of staff, poor communication, lack of leadership, both medical and nursing, a culture of assumption."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-18814487

The NHS Trust has apologised to his family.

This will surely lead to an indefensible claim for clinical negligence against the trust which says that it has admitted responsibility – they didn’t really have much choice.

I hope that Kane’s family get prompt and adequate justice for what he went through.

What is really frustrating is that we see cases like this happening on a regular basis there are still those who try and blame victims who sue hospitals for putting the NHS under pressure. If there was adequate care in the first place this would not be necessary.

http://www.eadsolicitors.co.uk/medical-negligence-solicitors.aspx

Asbestos - even the Romans knew...

So what is the big deal about asbestos? We all know that it was a flame proof substance that was used in the building trade years and years ago. We all know that it is life threatening and its use was banned sometime in the 1990s. So isn’t that the end of the matter?

Sadly it is not the end of the matter. The effects of asbestos will be with us for years.

The use of asbestos goes back many years, possibly centuries. It is a natural mineral which was mined by the Romans. The name comes from the Greek word meaning indestructible. The dangers were known even then. Historians talk of illnesses which it might cause and some warned against buying slaves who had worked with it because they tended not to live long.

But it became used at an industrial level in the 1950s and 60s and was widely used in the constructions of buildings and ships because it was fireproof and cheap. Throughout that time the dangers were well known.

But why is it still a problem in 2012? This is because of the nature of the fibres which can be in someone’s lungs for many years before anything happens. I once did a case for a railway worker who was exposed in the 1940s and became ill in about 2002. He developed mesothelioma and died within months.

A report back in 1999 was predicting 250k deaths by 2035 and we are seeing that happening –

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/257763.stm

The danger is still present in some older buildings so the figures could get worse. This is why householders are advised to take care when carrying out DIY –

http://www.take5andstayalive.com/

Lawyers will be dealing with these cases for many years. During the recent debates over the funding of litigation proposals to restrict the rights of claimants in mesothelioma cases (this is the worst of the asbestos related illnesses, almost only ever caused by asbestos and almost always fatal). The proposals could see victims losing up to 25% of their damages. It is simply a delay pending further investigations  

http://thestevecornforthblog.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/more-good-news-for-asbestos-victims-for.html

If there is one group of workers who deserve all the support that society can offer it is these. They were exposed to a life threatening substance whose dangers were well documented.

Great work is being done to campaign for victims especially by Merseyside MP Bill Esterton and Trade Unions. I would hope that all us will support this fight.

http://www.eadsolicitors.co.uk/our-expertise/asbestos.aspx

Access to Justice - Continuing the fight

The legislation which effectively wipes out Legal aid for those of limited means received the Royal Assent in May and will come into force in April 2013.

The debate has already begun about where we go from here. What is to be done to try and protect access to justice for ordinary people? Do we simply give up and allow whole swathes of the population to try their hand at litigation in person, against wealthy insurers and public bodies? That is unthinkable.

Firstly I entirely support the views of the Legal Action Group (LAG) that there is still lobbying to be done. Writing in their June bulletin Director Steve Hynes says – ‘The Act is not the last word on what the legal aid system will look like as secondary legislation will now follow and there will be opportunities to influence this.’ He also points out that the government was persuaded to leave the door open to bring areas of work back into the scope of legal aid. This is certainly the view of Liverpool Law Society and we are continuing to meet with local elected representatives to makes this case and encouraging the national Law Society to continue the fight.

But in the short term it is inevitable that there will be areas of unmet need. This will include those most in need of assistance, such as those needing advice on welfare benefits.

One interesting if controversial proposal has come from the Law Centre’s Federation. They have proposed that the Law Society impose a levy on all solicitors of say £25 a head. The money raised would cover the cost of placing a lawyer in every Law Centre in the country. Law Centres do a fantastic job offering free legal assistance to those in greatest need. I spent three years in a Law Centre in Liverpool and saw first hand the important work that they do.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/jul/10/law-centres-need-solicitors-cash?newsfeed=true

From a personal viewpoint I would be happy to pay this. If it means that the most vulnerable get access to professional advice then it seems a modest amount to pay. And it would improve the image of the profession who are usually portrayed by the media as being interested only in their own businesses. So to that extent I would support it.

But I can also see why others would object. Lawyers already do huge amounts of unpaid work – from giving free initial advice to giving voluntary advice at CABs and Law Centres. So why should they have to go even further to lessen the effect of the governments policies? The government will see it as a job well done if they have dismantled the legal aid system and the lawyers pick up the bill. So I can see real and justified opposition. This is going to be an ongoing debate as we regroup and continue the fight for people’s rights.

www.eadsolicitors.co.uk