Social Media and Lawyers - how is it for you?

A recent report has praised the use of Twitter by major City Law Firm, Pinsent Mason –

http://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-news/pinsents-example-other-big-firms-twitter-use-report-says

Now it is fairly obvious that anyone reading this has at least some knowledge of Social Media. But which is the most popular and of the most use to lawyers? 

I use the four most obvious platforms although each seems to contribute something different.

Twitter is what I have tended use the most for business and marketing. Its 140 character limit can be a bit frustrating but it can also be a great discipline to say something meaningful in just a few words – especially for lawyers! You only have to look at the response to Señor Suarez’ latest dental adventures to see how quickly a message can spread –

http://metro.co.uk/2014/06/24/luis-suarez-bites-giorgio-chiellini-twitter-responds-with-epic-memes-4774517/

So if you want to get something across briefly and quickly then it has to be Twitter. It is certainly the most effective way of presenting and promoting blog posts!

Facebook, on the other hand is more personal and homely. You tend to know who are interacting with, at least in a social media sense. So I would expect more dialogue on Facebook; more chat about culture and sport but less about business. So, I probably use FB the least for business. By the way I bought a great fridge magnet in France last week – ‘Facebook is like a fridge – you know there is nothing in there but you still check it every 10 minutes’.

So what about LinkedIn? I have been on there for about 3 years and I do like the way it tells me that my connections potentially link me to 15,259,305 people which is approaching twice the population of Austria! I have found it very useful to join its interest groups and have probably made more direct business contacts on here than anywhere else. But isn’t very ‘friendly’ to use. I find myself looking to see who might be on there but will then see if they are on twitter or even email. And I do find it disconcerting to see that someone in the USA has endorsed me for Estate Management or Attorneys!

But the most interesting platform, at the moment, for me is Google+. To be honest I am still getting my head around it. But I find it is user friendly, lively and useful for both business and personal contacts. I am as comfortable posting holiday photos to my circles as I am looking for business contacts or posting links to this blog. This has definitely been helped by the UK Connect: Grow Your Own Network started by Donna Beckett of @beckettandco . If you haven't yet signed up I would recommend you give it a go. The sheer scale of it is a bit overwhelming at first but you soon get used to it.

So I will still instinctively go to Twitter but G+ is closing in.

I would be interested in hearing your views!

www.eadsolicitors.co.uk

Access to Justice - LiP Service!

Yesterday I attended a meeting at Liverpool County Court with advisers, lawyers and Senior Judiciary. This was all about the growing problem of how we can best assist Litigants in Person.

When the government announced its devastating cuts to Legal Aid in 2013 many of us predicted a massive growth in the number of those bringing or defending cases without any legal representation. In a report in 2011 the Civil Justice Council said –

‘It is a reality that those who cannot afford legal services and those for whom the state will not provide legal aid comprise the larger part of the population of England and Wales. Thus for most members of the public who become involved in legal proceedings they will have to represent themselves.’ Access to Justice for Litigants in Person 2011.

What this does not say is that such litigants will often be opposed by public bodies or insurers with very deep pockets to pay expensive legal fees. And the legal process is more than just a maze. It is a minefield.

These unrepresented litigants are increasingly dependant on help from court staff who themselves have seen cuts in funding and can, in any event, only do so much. The burden is also taken on by voluntary agencies. They do a stalwart job. One advice worker in Liverpool advises hundreds of people facing debt cases virtually on her own and with diminishing resources. I have said before that Access to Advice at this level is a waste land –

http://thestevecornforthblog.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/access-to-justice-waste-land.html

The government has deprived ordinary people of the right to funded legal advice and, at the same time, squeezed the life out of those other agencies that were able to help. There are many solicitors and barristers who will advise litigants without charge. But in a climate of heavily reduced fees and record closures of law firms, there is only so much that they can do.

http://thestevecornforthblog.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/plugging-justice-gap-rant.html

The problem has recently been summed up by the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Thomas –

“…lawyers should not forget that in the present day litigation seems almost out of reach for those on modest incomes and many SMEs”.’

http://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-news/lord-chief-justice-calls-single-regulator

Lord Thomas hopes that a move towards fixed legal fees might improve the situation. Alongside this there is the move towards unbundled legal services whereby legal advice and help is provided at key stages throughout a case at a fixed charge –

 

http://thestevecornforthblog.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/the-demise-of-legal-aid-is-anyone.html

I’m afraid that I do not share his optimism. For those on lowest incomes, including some who are very vulnerable even a fixed fee is way beyond their reach.

What we need is a firm commitment from politicians to a reinstatement of properly funded legal assistance to those in greatest need. 

There is no point in having a justice system if people do not have access to that system regardless of wealth. This needs to be brought to the top of the agenda as we move towards a 2015 election.

www.eadsolicitors.co.uk

Workplace Accidents - extending the 'compensation culture'.

The Insurance Industry, the media and certain politicians have brought into existence a very effective myth – The Compensation Culture. We are led to believe that this ‘culture’ is out of control and is responsible for many of society’s ills, including high insurance premiums. These two words have become so widely used that many people now take for granted –

1. That it exists,
2. That it needs to be stopped,
3. That it is largely the fault of lawyers.

But it is indeed a myth.

The Master of the Rolls, one of the country’s senior judges, acknowledged this in a speech in March 2013. He referred to ‘media created myths’ He went on to say –

‘All of this may also require a substantive educative effort on the part of government, the courts and the legal profession to counteract the media-created perception that we are in the grips of a compensation culture.’

http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/70091.article

The government has showed little appetite for dispelling the myth. In fact they have been happy to promote it in order to help their insurance company friends.

The myth has been effectively used to attack victims of motor accidents. 

Now it seems that it is to be extended to those who have accidents at work or who suffer work related illnesses. The Telegraph has recently reported claims by AXA that businesses are victims of – ‘fraudulent injury compensation claims by an employee’. They cite one example! 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/businessclub/10793784/Small-and-mid-sized-companies-are-plagued-by-workplace-injury-claims.html

The reality is that a tiny minority of those who suffer from work related accidents or illnesses, actually pursue compensation claims. One government report says that 85% of those injured at work are not compensated. Recent changes in the law have made it much harder for victims to pursue cases against their employers. Many simply don’t want to do it for fear of losing their jobs.

https://plus.google.com/+DonnaBeckett/posts/DbXkJoCx8Sx

This is a worrying development. There is no such thing as a compensation culture. It is a fiction. The insurers have used it with great effect to attack victims of car accidents. Now, it seems, they have their sights fixed on a new group of victims.

There is a clear risk that we could indeed revert to Victorian days when it was virtually impossible to obtain justice for a work related injury. The development of Health and Safety Regulations, alongside the right to claim against careless employers has saved thousands of lives in industry over the last fifty odd years. This cannot be allowed to change.

www.eadsolicitors.co.uk

Seven Penalty Points can bar you from the Bench!

I have a confession to make! There have been two occasions during my driving career when I have hovered on 9 penalty points. Until they dropped off my licence; I was the most careful driver imaginable, much to the annoyance of the lines of traffic that often gathered behind me.

On one occasion I picked up 6 points in one trip. I was heading to a meeting in Burnley in very poor weather. I did not notice the speed camera that caught me doing 35 mph in the 30 mph zone. Much to my annoyance and to the amusement of my friends, I was caught by the same cameras as I headed in the opposite direction on my way home.

I am now safely on 3 points and hope to stay there.

Little did I know when I was happily driving through Burnley that I was jeopardising any potential judicial career. On the way into the town I was a fit and proper person to be a judge. By the time I left I wasn’t.

This was the unfortunate experience of Welsh Solicitor Graham Jones who was refused a Full Time job as a District Judge because he had 7 points on his licence! He was described as an outstanding candidate and would have got the job but for the points. He took Judicial Review proceedings against the JAC which have been dismissed. Leveson LJ said –

“In my judgment, the JAC is entitled to take the view that public confidence in the standards of the judiciary would not be maintained if persons who are appointed to judicial office have committed motoring offences resulting in penalty points at the level identified in the guideline within four years of their appointment.”

http://www.litigationfutures.com/news/solicitor-denied-judicial-appointment-points-driving-licence-loses-jr

Apparently he is still a fit and proper person to continue to sit as a Deputy DJ and has been encourage to apply again, when the points have gone from his licence. If I was him I would tell them where to put their advice. Is it just me or does this just show a complete disengagement from the real world. If he is a good and competent judge why should be debarred from a judicial career because he might have missed a speed camera. And why should he be any more or less acceptable once the points have gone.

The confessions I just made will no doubt bar me for ever. I haven’t even mentioned the two fines I picked up during an epic drive through Queensland last year.  And I was so looking forward to spending the rest of my days striking out claims where lawyers made marginal errors!

The lesson is this. If you have any ambitions to be a judge drive carefully. Or at the very least choose the option of a speed awareness course – it could be a decision that saves your career.

www.eadsolicitors.co.uk

Stobart Barristers run out of gas

Much has been said, and written, about Alternative Business Structures and how they would change the world as we know it. The message was that major national brands such as Tesco’s would take over the provision of legal services and the days of the traditional law firm were numbered. As it was, Tesco’s showed no particular appetite.

One business which did go for legal work in a big way was Eddie Stobart, with their launch of Stobart Barristers,. This was a surprising move which I wrote about way back in June 2012 –

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

The question I raised back then was how they would bridge gap between the public perception of them at truckers and their ambition to be serious players in the legal market-place. They went for it in a big way. I attended a Legal Futures conference at which Trevor Howarth, then legal director, told us that High Street Firms were effectively finished and this was the model for the future. The name and clout of Eddie Stobart meant that he could provide legal advice from one of his barristers more quickly and cheaply than any of us could achieve. He was a good speaker and it was all quite convincing and worrying.

They caused controversy in 2013 with plans to bid for criminal legal aid work –

http://thestevecornforthblog.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/fast-eddie-turns-to-crime.html

But it has now all come grinding to a halt like truck that has run out of fuel. Last week, they announced that they were no longer offering legal services to the public –

http://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-news/exclusive-stobart-barristers-reaches-end-road

Mr Howarth explained that the decision was due to regulatory changes that meant that direct access barristers would now have to take greater responsibility for issues such as client care. That is a very telling statement. You can have the most well known name on UK motorways but if you cannot look after you clients you should not be in this market. Mr. Howarth has now left to set up a new business called One Legal.

So what now for the famed but mythical Tesco-Law? Co-operative Legal Services hardly set the world on fire –

http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/practice/exclusive-co-op-legal-to-axe-60-pi-jobs/5038856.article

The legal market might have appeared attractive. But it is a tough world which gets tougher by the day. ABS are here to stay and do provided commercial flexibility for many firms.

But does all of this mean that well known brands will stick to what they do best? 

Time will tell, but I think the cataclysmic changes that many predicted are still some distance away.

www.eadsolicitors.co.uk

Concerning Eurovision, the Matrix, Grayling and suspended reality

Tonight in one of those nights that I look forward to all year, but which also sees most of my friends and family smile patiently, or exit the room. Yes it is Eurovision.  And this promises to be particularly entertaining with its mix of buxom Polish women doing the laundry, a trampoline act and a bearded lady from Austria who does in fact have a spectacularly good voice! Those who have deserted me will normally rejoin me for the voting when various geographical groupings will give top marks to their mates and the UK will finish near the bottom as we don’t have any mates in Europe…

Eurovision is one of those moments when reality is suspended. Accepted norms of musical taste and cultural respectability are nowhere to be seen.

Which is a bit like the Matrix in which those things which are accepted as reality are virtual creations of a complex computer. We are drawn into that fascinating conundrum about what is fake and what is real life.

So where lies the tenuous link with our justice system? It is all to do with the erasing of reality as we have known it. It all began when we got the first non lawyer Lord Chancellor since the 17^th Century. Now it might sound like professional snobbery to say that only lawyers can run the legal system. But it has led to a fundamental shift in the government’s perception of justice. For example Mr. Grayling wishes to severely curtail the rights of citizens to take actions for Judicial Review of political decisions. The Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights has recently attacked these moves and also questioned the concept of having a Minister with a purely political agenda in charge of the courts –

"There needs to be a complete review of the implications of combining in one person these roles, and of the current structure of departmental responsibilities between the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice," 

http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2014/04/30/parliament-unites-against-grayling-s-assault-on-justice

But this new reality is not limited to this. It is sweeping across the justice system like Genghis Khan. As Access to Justice has been virtually wiped out we are seeing the courts grinding to a halt as litigants in person try to negotiate the maze that many of us have navigated for years. One Court of Appeal Judge recently summed this up –

‘This case is illustrative of an increasing problem faced by this court. More and more litigants appear in front of us in person. Where, as here, the appellant is unrepresented, this requires all those involved in the appeal process to take on burdens that they would not normally have to bear. The court office finds itself having to attempt to make sure that the parties to the litigation are notified of the appeal because litigants in person do not always know who should be served; the only respondent named by M here was LA. The bundles that the court requires in order to determine the appeal are often not provided by the litigant, or are incomplete, and proper papers have to be assembled by the court, not infrequently at the request of the judges allocated to hear the case when they embark upon their preparation for the hearing just days before it is due to start. The grounds of appeal that can properly be advanced have to be identified by the judge hearing the permission application and the arguments in support of them may have to be pinpointed by the court hearing the appeal.’ Lady Justice Black. 

Mike Williamson says more about this at –

http://legalchap.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/own-goals.html

Only last week we saw a major fraud trial halted because Grayling cuts to Legal Aid meant that there was nobody to represent the Defendants –

http://thestevecornforthblog.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/cameron-gets-trial-halted-due-to-legal.html

But in fairness to Mr. Grayling he is not wiping out reality single handed. We have court rules that refer to ‘Relief from Sanctions,’ but which now mean the opposite. That phrase now fills litigators with fear as they know that the true meaning is closer to relief from constipation. Only alien abduction is likely to justify a one day's delay in lodging a document or worse still paying a fee.

And then on top of that the fees charged by the civil courts have just gone up by 80% because justice now has to be managed at a profit.

So you see; Eurovision, the Matrix and Civil Justice are not so far apart. And while we are at it let’s throw in a bit of Star Trek –

“It’s life Jim, but not as we know it’

www.eadsolicitors.co.uk

Cameron gets trial halted due to Legal Aid cuts

One of the main concerns raised following the cuts to Legal aid has been that parties in both criminal and civil proceedings will end up having to represent themselves in court. The impact of this is already being felt across the courts system.

Family Courts are reporting a steep rise in the umbers who are representing themselves.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2d77bea6-c951-11e3-99cc-00144feabdc0.html#axzz30T2uNJUt

This in turn leads to long delays. Most lawyers and judges agree that a case involving Litigants in Person will normally take twice the time of one where the parties have lawyers. It can also lead to outrageous consequences for those parties. One victim of rape was recently, on the verge of being cross-examined by her attacker who did not have legal aid. Legal Aid was only granted following the threat of Judicial Review Proceedings against the Legal Aid Agency.

http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/legal-aid-ruling-saves-rape-victim-from-court-trauma/5040839.article

But the most embarrassing moment for the government has to be the Crown Court decision in Southwark today. This was a major fraud trial involving eight defendants. Due to the recent cuts in Legal Aid the Defendants were unable to get suitable legal representation for their Trial. It was argued, on their behalf that they would not get a fair trial. The Judge agreed and halted the Trial. He accepted that substantial efforts had been made to find a barrister to represent them. He said that it would be a violation of the legal process if they had to represent themselves.

To deprive someone of legal representation is indeed a violation of our rights as citizens. 

What is embarrassing for the Ministry of Justice is that the application to halt the trial was made by Alex Cameron QC – the brother of our own PM, who was acting free of charge. He told the court –

"The state has failed to provide adequate representation to allow the trial to take place…a stay is exceptional, but so is lack of representation in this country. We are worried about a fair trial. It's not the fault of the FCA but we do [blame] the state more widely."

Will these words of reason from a source close to home lead to a change of heart by the government?

Who knows? But it certainly raises a further question mark over the future of Minister of Justice Chris Grayling who has simply got it wrong and refuses to admit it. 

Maybe another member of the Cameron family will decide that enough is enough.

www.eadsolicitors.co.uk