Quizzing for Justice 2020

I have to confess to being a collector of useless information. I once spent a long flight home from Los Angeles memorising all of the state capitals of the USA. I think the obsession goes back the days of memorising lists of cases when I was a law student. I am also a fan of the TV show Pointless which probably says something. 

All of which brings me to the Great North West Virtual Legal Quiz.

But first why are we are we doing this?

In normal circumstances we would be planning the Liverpool Legal Walk. This time last year, I was getting ready for the humiliation of a 5k walk in a Liverpool football shirt! That walk raised about £6k to support agencies which provide free legal advice to those in need.

At a time when the need for this advice has never been greater, we are unable to go ahead with the walk before the Autumn. According to the Access to Justice Foundation there as many as 14m people who are living in poverty and unable to obtain legal assistance. Advice is needed across whole areas of law including Welfare Benefits, Employment, Housing and Family Law. Access to legal aid remains limited -

https://atjf.org.uk/

In the momentous case of  Unison v The Lord Chancellor [2017] UKSC 51 (the tribunal fees case)  Lord Reed explained why this is so important –

“Courts exist in order to ensure that the laws made by Parliament, and the common law created by the courts themselves, are applied and enforced. That role includes ensuring that the executive branch of government carries out its functions in accordance with the law.

In order for the courts to perform that role, people must in principle have unimpeded access to them. Without such access, laws are liable to become a dead letter, the work done by Parliament may be rendered nugatory, and the democratic election of Members of Parliament may become a meaningless charade”

I will never cease to argue that full access to justice is achieved by a fully funded legal aid system. But there is little sign of that being a reality any time soon. In the meantime, the need doesn’t go away. So we need to do all we can to support the law centres, advice agencies and other charities who will provide this essential service without charge.

So back to the Great Virtual Legal quiz! Without having to leave to comfort of our laptops we can raise important funds for the Community Justice Fund. This is a joint initiative of a number of agencies including the Access to Justice Foundation, The Legal Education Foundation and others. 

The fund is open to applications now –

https://www.communityjusticefund.org.uk/

The quiz will also be a chance to socialise with others (although it will probably involve more Zooming!).

And you will have the joy of Steve Bamber Cornforth as host!!

You can register here - http://atjf.org.uk/great-legal-quiz

Further instructions will follow as we get nearer the day.

Concerning remote working, Celebrity Squares and hanging files!

The question that many are asking is whether lawyers will ever return to working the way they did before the lockdown. According to a report in Legal Cheek there is a significant majority who want to continue to work at home –

https://www.legalcheek.com/2020/05/over-60-of-legal-staff-want-to-work-from-home-post-lockdown/

Legal work has been moving in this direction for some time. I am old enough to remember the days of a local High Street office where the main source of work was passing trade. If someone came into the office, they would be seen right away because otherwise they would go down the road. These were the days when the local solicitors did a bit of everything from conveyancing to accident claims to divorce.

The world of Google, Social Media and Smartphones has effectively ended that particular world.

I also remember the importance of the paper file. The size of the file grew with the case - some measured their costs by its width. It went everywhere with you. I was once running to a court hearing carrying a large file when a hook that was used to hang it in the cabinet became caught in a woman's crocheted top. The papers went eveywhere. I sheepishly gathered up the papers and then had to ask her to free the file from its embarassing location. Thankfully she had a sense of humour. I was never a fan of paper files after that...

Most lawyers can now login remotely and have immediate access to the matters.

This has all been part of a process that has developed slowly over the years. Then came lockdown which changed everything. 

And then we all discovered Zoom! Is it just me who can't stop thinking about Celebrity Squares!

Many of those who have resisted remote working have had no choice since the lockdown. They now see that it is manageable. They also see the costs benefits in relation to premises and time. I live in the north of Liverpool. For years, the journey to the city centre was a nightmare because of never ending roadworks or crowded trains. When I began working for myself in 2017, I was suddenly liberated. I was actually working during the two hours that I was once commuting.

This was on the agenda long before the lockdown. Office accommodation has always been a major business overhead alongside salaries and indemnity insurance.

Firms have been looking at the cost and flexibility of new ways of working for several years.

https://www.legalcheek.com/2018/04/allen-overy-launches-flexible-working-hub-just-three-miles-from-its-london-hq/

Again, what the crisis has done, is force us to find alternatives. For many that has made a return to the old ways very unappealing. That doesn't mean the end of the office. Face to face meetings will always be needed to some degree. But will it be necessary all of the time?

I would be surprised if we did not see a long-term shift to new ways of working. I also suspect that many young lawyers will now be attracted to the idea of working for themselves as freelancers or sole practitioners.

The PM's speech, a confused message with a hidden sting in the tail

Across England*, many will be scratching their heads and wondering whether they are supposed to be going to work today, or not. Such is the level of uncertainty that has followed the Prime Minister’s broadcast yesterday. So what did he actually say about work. His opening words do not really change anything for some–

“We said that you should work from home if you can, and only go to work if you must..”

That is all he said about those who are working from home. No change. This prompted the CEO of one major solicitors’ firm to email the entire workforce to say –

“Following on from Boris not really saying very much.. nothing changes for us so please don’t worry about whether tomorrow is any different from last week”

It is encouraging to see a business leader taking prompt action to ease the anxiety caused by the speech.

The PM went on –

“We now need to stress that anyone who can’t work from home, for instance those involved in construction or manufacturing should be actively encouraged to go to work.”

I must confess to reading that sentence repeatedly, but was none the wiser. Those who, for the last 8 weeks, have not been able to work from home, fall into one of two groups. They have either been going to work or they have been furloughed.  The PM was clearly not speaking to the group who have been working. This is all about furlough. The message is directed at those who have been furloughed and the message is that you should now go back to work. 

I have had a message this morning from a friend whose partner, a building surveyor  has been instructed back to work today and will be required to go into the houses of complete strangers.

It does seem that the real message here sits behind the words. Furlough has been popular and has probably saved many lives.  But it is also expensive. Have you noticed how the rhetoric around furlough has changed? At first, it was heralded as a way of protecting workers and controlling the coronavirus outbreak. More recently the rhetoric has been about the nation sitting at home watching Netflix. Workers themselves have no control over this. They did not furlough themselves. They cannot unfurlough themselves. 

This seems to be preparing the ground for a gradual ending of the scheme and pressurising employers and workers back to work regardless of safety concerns.

There is no clarity at all for workers who are instructed to return but have genuine safety concerns.

The PM was never enthusiastic about lockdown measures. Right at the start, he talked about “taking it on the chin” and allowing the disease to move through the population. He said that things like closing schools and stopping large gathering don’t work as well as people think. It was the Imperial College report that predicted catastrophic fatalities that changed this. Despite continuing words of caution, the message now seems to be to get back to normal as soon as possible. 

Removal of the words ‘Stay at Home’, will be interpreted by many as a call to get out especially when replaced by the meaningless ‘stay alert’. Many have pointed out the subliminal message behind the new warning signs. The old one was red – Stop. The new one is green – Go. There is nothing wrong with restarting the economy when the time is right. Are we there yet? 

We need a clear response from the Opposition, from unions and from businesses to say lives must come before the economy.

* Other UK countries are maintaining the stay at home message

What have lawyers ever done for us Part 2 - Pro Bono!

I wrote the other day about the important work done by lawyers much of which is overlooked in the face of hostile media coverage and political rhetoric.

In that post I mentioned those lawyers who go the extra mile for clients, who act as a friend and support. This is work for which they rarely receive any payment or public acknowledgement.  

So, let’s look at this in more detail.

My earlier post shared a tweet from a family lawyer about domestic violence. In these cases, the solicitor is often the first person to hear the victim’s story. One firm in Wales has developed a link with a local charity to offer free advice and help to victims –

https://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/news/18424204.law-firm-teams-womens-aid-charity-offer-free-help-victims-domestic-abuse-pandemic-lockdown/

This is just one example of many such schemes that are helped by unpaid lawyers.

Law Works is a charity which is dedicated to securing legal help for those who cannot get legal aid and do not have the funds to cover their own legal costs. Their aim is to connect volunteer lawyers with those is need –

https://www.lawworks.org.uk/

Their work is underpinned by a network of lawyers and firms who are willing to work without charge to facilitate access to justice. The technical expression is pro bono! Their website explains -

“While pro bono is not, and should not become, an alternative to legal aid - it makes an important contribution to accessing legal information, advice and representation.”

Most major Solicitors’ firms have a commitment to pro bono work. One example, is major City firm, Allen and Overy whose website says that 52% of their lawyers took part in unpaid work in 2019 with 48,000 unpaid hours recorded.

https://www.allenovery.com/en-gb/global/about_us/corporate_responsibility/pro_bono_and_community

At the other extreme are the Law Centres which survive (many don’t) on a shoestring to fight for justice for the most vulnerable.

Across the country it is estimated that 60% of lawyers do some unpaid work.

The Law Society, working with Law Works, is promoting an initiative to respond to the need for free advice arising because of the coronavirus outbreak –

https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/support-services/coronavirus/coronavirus-covid-19-and-pro-bono/

This is just scratching the surface of the huge amount of unpaid work that layers do. This covers anything from managing complex litigation to advising that an alternative to legal action might be best.

This need is not going to go anywhere whilst legal aid remains so limited. That need is largely met by the dedication of those lawyers, across the profession, who do this unpaid work.

This will be sorely missed if whole sectors of the profession are forced to close.

What have lawyers ever done for us?

If this sector is wiped out, there will be a hole in our justice system that will take a long time to mend.

Two reports in the last few days raise the alarming news of existential threats to whole areas of the legal profession. Last week we read that as many as 70% of young barristers will not survive in practice for more than 6 months. Those who do legally aided work will be the worst hit – 

https://www.legalcheek.com/2020/04/research-over-70-of-young-barristers-wont-survive-six-months-in-practice/

I shared this story on twitter and there was a lot of lively debate. Most of this was supportive. But there were also the predictable negative comments about moaning lawyers and there being far too many of them. Some even suggested that they could go and work for big companies. The idea of an independent bar seemed to some, to be something from a work of fantasy!

Today we read a similarly gloomy story about High Street Solicitors – 

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/many-high-street-law-firms-face-collapse-research-suggests/5104096.article

These smaller firms and sole practitioners face huge difficulties going forwards. As many as 70% could close because of the coronavirus pandemic. It is interesting that the story is picked up by the Daily Mail which has done more than anyone to attack the work done by those who act for ordinary people – 

The media and politicians have all done their bit to create this false image that lawyers are all fat cats who are out to make a fortune at the expense of the beleaguered insurance industry and big business. The reality is that they are dedicated, hard working young professionals who have chosen to work for the rights of ordinary citizens. You would struggle to find a lawyer who acts for victims of medical negligence who has even dreamt of ‘cashing in’ on anything. This is extremely demanding work which can take many years to concluded. Victims face life changing injuries and often need care for life. The same media that attacks the lawyers, also like to call the victims ‘winners’ if they get justice –

https://thestevecornforthblog.blogspot.com/2019/06/medical-negligence-lets-talk-about.html

Most of these solicitors and barristers work on the basis that are paid nothing if they do not get positive result. This is the reality of the other favourite insult – ‘the no win no fee lawyer’ but that is another story! I have never met a lawyer who does this work, who sees it as a quick way to get rich – in fact it is the opposite.

Many lawyers are often the first person to whom a person will speak. This is normally unpaid work but plays a massive role in protecting victims, for example, of domestic violence.  -

'.... a friend as well as a lawyer'

There is a whole sector of the legal profession that is currently at risk of disappearing.

Society needs independent advocates who will represent ordinary people if they are accused of wrongdoing or are victims of negligence. We need solicitors who will work for the rights of victims. We need to change the message. If this sector is wiped out, there will be a hole in our justice system that will take a long time to mend.

It is encouraging that the opposition is raising concerns and making positive suggestions -

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/labour-how-we-must-adapt/5104132.article

We need a sensible debate about securing the foundations of out justice system. Something must be done.

Compassionate leadership - a thing of the future?

“I refuse to believe that you cannot be both compassionate and strong” – Jacinda Ardern

The Prime Minister of New Zealand has drawn praise from across the world for her openness and leadership through the difficulties of the last few weeks. From her voluntary pay cut, to assuring the children of her country that the Easter Bunny was a key worker she has stood in stark contrast to some other world leaders.

The current crisis and resulting lockdown have possibly given us the opportunity to reflect on where true leadership is found, including in relation to the management of law firms – or any other business for that matter. Most of us have been brought up in the belief that a business leader must be strong. But does that need to be at the expense of compassion?

Let’s look at performance issues. How do we bring the best out of our team? How do we deal with someone who does not seem to be at their best, who is not meeting their targets? There may be times when a firm word is needed. There may be others when a different approach works best. I have a confession! I react to praise or criticism – always have. So, if I post something that has lots of positive comments, I will be motivated to do more. If I am met with criticism or even worse: silence, I feel like giving up. In football terms, I’m a confidence player. To be honest we are all like that, to some degree. So, someone who is not working at their best might need a bit of encouragement, a positive word, a reminder of good things they have done. Or there might be other issues – worry, tiredness, family difficulties. It is not acceptable to say that they should leave their problems at home, as if the problem is somehow separate from the person. If someone is weak then why not help to make them stronger rather that expect them to ‘man up’ whatever that means.

The same goes for openness – one my recurring themes. Time and time again I have written about the need to encourage staff and colleagues to talk to someone if they have made a mistake or things are getting out of hand. Compassionate managers know how they feel.  They have been there. They know that nobody is perfect. The fact that they have messed up does not invalidate all the good things that they have done and will do. A person who knows that they are a valuable part of the team, is less likely to lock themself in a room and concoct some catastrophic cover up. The ones who do that are the ones who already feel isolated. A culture based on empathy looks for a solution, not for someone to blame.

Does this sound like bleeding heart liberalism? Are we becoming snowflakes? In fact, it is the opposite. The world in which we live, and work can be tough. It is even tougher just now and might get worse in the future. What we need are strong teams headed by strong leaders. But as the wise leader of New Zealand says, compassion is a strength not a weakness.

Keep safe.

In which losing a briefcase turns out far worse than a headbutt!

Two recent disciplinary cases against lawyers have produced very contrasting outcomes.

Firstly, there is, yet again, the tragedy of a career in tatters because of desperate attempts at a cover up. The background to this case is, to be honest, the stuff of everyone’s nightmare. Claire Matthews did not miss a deadline; she did not get the law wrong; she fell asleep on a train. Unfortunately, this caused her to leave behind a locked brief case that contained highly sensitive documents. Her client was the SRA.

She did not report the incident to her employers, Capsticks, for a week in the hope that she could retrieve the lost briefcase. She lied to a colleague that she had left it at her new flat and that she would return it. In a later email she said that she had left it on a train that morning when in fact this had happened the previous week. Anyone who has followed these stories will know that this was all going to end badly.

There was evidence before the SDT that she was in a very bad state following the incident. She told the tribunal that she had “drank alcohol to excess in order block out the event. At her lowest point, the Respondent said that she had resorted to drinking bleach in an attempt to end her life.”  She said that she acted in panic and that there was no deliberate attempt to mislead.

The tribunal found that –

“The damage to the reputation of the profession by the Respondent’s misconduct was significant as the public would trust a solicitor not to conceal the loss of data by telling untruths to their colleagues and their employer. The Respondent’s conduct was a significant departure from the complete integrity, probity and trustworthiness expected of a solicitor.”

https://www.solicitorstribunal.org.uk/sites/default/files-sdt/12005.2019.Matthews.pdf

She was struck off and ordered to pay £10k costs.

This does seem a harsh outcome. But is stark reminder again of the need to be completely open if you make a mistake. To leave a bag on a train is forgivable. It can happen to us all. To then mislead your employers takes the incident to another level. To confess is painful. To lose your career is a tragedy. The SDT have again made it clear that honesty and integrity are paramount.

It is interesting that the second case, involving a member of the bar, has a very different outcome. It was a very different case. The report in Legal Futures opens with the unforgettable words –

“A senior barrister who headbutted a junior female member of chambers during a drunken row, leaving her on the ground with blood all over her face, has been suspended for three months by a Bar disciplinary tribunal.”

https://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-news/barrister-suspended-for-headbutting-female-colleague

It seems that both barristers were drunk.

The Bar Disciplinary Tribunal, in suspending him said that a “signal needed to be sent” that such conduct was not acceptable. I should say, in passing, that Everton FC player Duncan Ferguson spent 4 months in HMP Barlinnie for headbutting an opponent when playing for Glasgow Rangers!

This is nothing to do with the case of Ms Matthews. But you could understand members of the public wondering why a young solicitor does more damage to the reputation of the profession by panicking after losing a briefcase, than a senior barrister who headbutts a woman colleague in the street.

Just saying.