Compare Your Briefs Dot Com??

I have to admit to being a regular user of Trip Adviser both before and after holidays. It is an excellent way of finding out about intended destinations and local entertainment. I have left occasional reviews. There have been criticisms that sites like this allow competitors to post negative feedback. But there is always a right to reply and overall, whilst not perfect, it is a useful way of finding out about places.

What has this got to do with the law? Well how would we feel about a similar comparison site for Solicitors’ firms. What if you could go to a forum and see what former or current clients are saying about your lawyers?

There are some sites around, notably, Solicitors-Info which is growing in popularity.

But this whole area could expand if The Law Society goes ahead with plans to develop its own site.

According to legalfutures they have begun feasibility research –

http://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-news/exclusive-law-society-begins-work-on-creating-solicitor-comparison-website

This is a response to a report earlier this year from the Legal Services Consumer Panel, encouraging the profession to make greater use of comparison sites. The Law Society already has a Find A Solicitor service which gives basic information. But it has no formal facility to enable the public to see how a firm performs. Would this be a good thing? One danger is that disgruntled opponents could post offensive and misleading reviews. It might even be used by unhappy former clients to ‘sound off’.

But that is the world in which we now live. They might sound off somewhere in any event. Other sectors are learning to live with such sites and lawyers will really just be bringing themselves into the 21^st Century. If there is obviously inaccurate posting then there would be right to post a response or even remove in extreme cases. And it will do any harm for lawyers to be aware of what clients think about their services and where they could do with improvement.

We live in a world where consumers have greater knowledge and expectation then ever before. That can only be a good thing in a modern democracy. The days are long gone when lawyers were remote and expensive or when the family lawyer acted in every matter for generations. Firms need to understand what clients need and expect of them. This would seem to be step in the right direction.

But if it does happen and you leave a review – be gentle!!

http://www.eadsolicitors.co.uk/

A tweet too far??

Here’s a question – what would you think if this came up on your twitter timeline?

"Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your shit together otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!!"

Would you sympathise with the frustration of a delayed traveler or would you see it as a real threat of a terrorist attack? Well to anyone with a bit of common sense the answer is obvious.

Sadly that has not been the case for the unfortunate Paul Chambers who tweeted that statement back in 2010. He was charged and convicted of sending a public electronic message that was "..of an indecent, obscene or menacing character contrary to the Communications Act 2003". He was duly fined and ordered to pay the costs. And he does now have a criminal record.

I have gone on before about the need to be careful what we tweet. There can be severe consequences for those think that they can send grossly offensive material from the safety of their own homes –

http://thestevecornforthblog.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/think-before-you-tweet.html

But this case really makes our criminal justice system look a bit ridiculous. Would any reasonable person reading those words consider them to add up to a menacing threat?

Mr. Chambers’ case is before the Appeal Courts today –

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/06/27/robin-hood-airport-tweet-case-in-court-paul-chambers-twitter-joke-trial_n_1629611.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

His case has generated a lot of media interest mainly because of the celebrities who have backed him; including Stephen Fry and Jonathan Ross.

Let’s hope that the judges see the distinction between the sort of conduct from which we need to be protected and what is really an ill-judged joke!

www.eadsolicitors.co.uk

Friendly fire - legal remedies

There are many who question the rights and the wrongs of our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. But regardless of those arguments we all feel for those young men who are sent to fight especially when we hear the dreaded news of another tragic loss.

These terrible events seem that much worse when the loss is caused by errors on our own side, where soldiers are killed or injured by their own forces or by inadequate equipment.

This is the issue which is being currently before the Court of Appeal. In two separate cases being heard together the Appeal Judges are considering what duties are owed by the MOD to our own forces. Corporal Stephen Albutt was killed in a friendly fire incident where it would appear that forces on his own side were at fault. Privates Phillip Hewitt and Lee Ellis, and Lance Corporal Kirk Redpath were killed by roadside bombs whilst driving vehicles described as ‘inadequate’.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/25/ministry-of-defence-duty-of-care

The Ministry of Defence argues that it should have immunity from legal actions. It says that if it can be sued for incidents arising in combat then it will be inhibited from effective operations. The contrary argument is that soldiers should be entitled to the maximum care and provision of the best equipment if they are putting their lives at risk for the sake of the state.

Surely the time has come for such immunities as this to be removed. As one of the lawyers acting for the soldiers has said –

"The Ministry of Defence continues to argue that British soldiers should be in the uniquely unfortunate position of having no human rights when deployed abroad to fight on our behalf," said Jocelyn Cockburn, one of the lawyers involved in the case. She added: "Their argument reaches even lower depths now in recognising that whilst an Iraqi citizen who is killed or injured by a UK soldier can rely on the Human Rights Act, the soldier himself cannot do so if he is given faulty equipment which leads to his own injury or death."

There may be some operational issues to be dealt with. But this cannot be used as a justification for depriving soldiers of justice, especially when they are placing their own lives in danger.

It will be interesting to see what view is taken by the appeal judges. But there is surely no place for immunity from accountability in a modern society.

www.eadsolicitors.co.uk

Miami 5 - a scandalous injustice?

Managing a modern law firm is all about running a business – everything from budgets to human resources to IT. That is of course inevitable and any firm that doesn’t function as a business enterprise is not going to last long.

But every now and then something happens to remind us all why we became lawyers in the first place – to fight injustice.

That happened last Friday when I met Elizabeth, Olga, Adriana and Rosa; wives of the group of Cuban men known as the Miami 5. This was at a dinner in Liverpool organised by EAD , Unite and Cuba Solidarity .

Their story is both tragic and scandalous. For many years from the 1960s there was a series of terrorist attacks on Cuba. These were carried out by right wing exiles in Florida. Several thousand Cubans had been killed and the incidents including bringing down a Cuban plane. They arrived in Florida with the sole purpose of infiltrating these terrorist groups in order to stop the atrocities. But they were arrested by Florida officials, subjected to a trial in front of a hostile Florida jury despite many requests for a neutral venue to secure a fair trial. They were duly convicted and given punitive sentences from many years to life.

But the injustice does not stop there. They have been denied contact with their families and the wives have had requests for visits routinely refused. Amnesty International is one of a number or organisations who have campaigned for fair treatment.

There is a certain irony that the nation who have led the so called war on terror have imprisoned men whose only aim was to defend their own people from similar attacks. It is also ironic that country who co-drafted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – described by Eleanor Roosevelt as her greatest achievement – disregards it when it wants to. In particular what happened to the right not to be subjected to degrading treatment or the right to family life? And that is before we start of the unfairness of the trial itself!

These men have been the subject of a massive and continuing injustice. It is one that does not attract great publicity because of the power of the USA and its dislike of the Cuban regime. But leaving aside politics it is simply injustice – full stop.

I am proud that EAD supports their campaign and was recently involved in an art exhibition to highlight their plight –

http://thestevecornforthblog.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/art-for-justice.html

But any effective moves to secure their release and fair treatment will have to come from the USA itself and I certainly hope that movements over there will lead eventually to a outcome which is just and fair. I would also encourage as many as possible to support this cause.

 

www.eadsolicitors.co.uk

Fighting injustice

Car Insurance - a complex web

We are told again and again that motor insurance premiums are too high. We are also told that the reason for this is the number of claims being pursued by ‘no win no fee’ lawyers and in particular claims for whiplash.

It is easy to believe that anybody injured in a motor accident, caused by another driver, is somehow personally responsible for high premiums. I have said before that is mainly a myth –

http://thestevecornforthblog.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/whiplash-pain-in-neck.html

But there is barely a mention of the conduct on motor insurers themselves.

This has been highlighted, this week, by a case where insurers have been battling between themselves over repair costs. In a case known as Coles, Woodhead and Crowther v Hetherton, Guy and Thomas – RSA were taken to task by Allianz and Provident. This concerned the RSA’s practice of using a repair company, MRNM, which is part of their group, to do the work. This obviously saved money on the charges. But they were charging the third parties’ insurers (in these cases Allianz and Provident) a notional repair cost rather than the actual cost. This was based on what it would have cost the driver to do the work rather than what they paid. They accepted that they made money on this arrangement.

In a hearing this week the High Court approved the practice and declared that it was entirely reasonable. Mr. Justice Cook ruled that a reasonable repair cost is not necessarily the cost actually incurred. It is now being predicted that in a competitive market other insurers will follow suit. This in turn could see a 25% hike in premiums.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/insurance/motorinsurance/9333905/Court-ruling-could-force-motor-insurance-premiums-to-rise-by-25pc.html

This comes on the back of news that the OFT are to investigate the conduct of insurers. They are accused amongst other things of inflating car hire and repair costs by entering into agreements with suppliers who charge inflated amounts. They are also amongst the highest beneficiaries of referral fees.

I hope all this will begin to set the record straight. It is easy to blame victims of accidents for high premiums. It is even easier to blame their lawyers who are always cheap targets! But in reality nobody expects the insurance industry give us all a rebate if claims are reduced.

Premiums are too high. But the way they are charged is a very complex web.

http://www.eadsolicitors.co.uk/road-traffic-accident-solicitors.aspx

Negotiating the legal maze!!

One phrase which is going to become familiar following the government's dismantling of access to justice is ‘litigants in person.’ These will be the claimants who bring their cases to court without any legal advice or representation. This group of litigants tends to have a poor reputation. In many cases this is justified. In the past there have been people who have seen a series of lawyers and been told that they have no viable case. They plough on regardless and can be a drain on the court system pursuing a case that is never going to win. 

In fairness that is not always the case. There have been many occasions when litigants in person have shown great determination and succeeded where others might have failed. Erin Brokovich was so successful that they made her case into a movie which won Julia Roberts an Oscar!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erin_Brockovich

These are the extremes.

The lack of access to legal advice is going to create a new dilemma; those claimants who are entirely reasonable and have very good claims but have nobody to guide them through the procedural maze of our courts. Jon Robins writing in the Guardian last year summed this up well –

‘The Kafkaesque workings of the English legal system can be enough to drive anyone round the bend.’

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/nov/14/outlook-bleak-for-unrepresented-litigants

The dismantling of access is two pronged. There are swathing cuts to legal aid. But it is also going to be more difficult to pursue cases on a no win no fee basis.

In the absence of assistance the burden will fall on the courts themselves. The court administration will become bogged down as will the judges who estimate that a trial with unrepresented parties takes about twice as long as one involving lawyers. This is one reason why the cuts are a false economy. Any savings to the legal aid budget will be completely wiped out by the additional costs to the courts. And there will be other hidden costs which I mentioned on here last year –

http://thestevecornforthblog.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/legal-aid-expensive-savings.html

But the cost is not entirely economic. There is also a huge social cost. For every claimant who decides to pursue a case in person there will probably be two more who will be deterred from doing anything because the whole thing is too stressful and intimidating. So we will then the erosion of justice itself. 

The legislation imposing these cuts is now in force and its effects will begin in April 2013. But the politicians need to be consistently reminded of these costs. It may a long battle but they need to be reminded of the real cost.

www.eadsolicitors.co.uk

Life and Death - whose decision?

There are times when our courts have to deal with the most difficult issues of life and death.

That is certainly the situation in a Case which is before the High Court as we speak. This is the tragic case of Tony Nicklinson. He was an active and healthy businessman until he suffered a devastating stroke in 2005. This has left him with a terrible condition known as ‘locked-in syndrome’.

He is paralysed from the neck down and is unable to speak. He can only communicate by blinking or head movements. But he has no intellectual injury and is fully aware of his situation. He does not wish this to continue. He is asking the court to declare that if a doctor assists him in ending his life that such doctor will not be prosecuted.

As the law stands it is a criminal offence to assist a person in taking their own life.

In a document read to the court he says that he has had many years to consider his decision and –

"Legal arguments are fine but they should not forget that a life is affected by the decision they come to; a decision going against me condemns me to a 'life' of increasing misery."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/lockedin-man-tony-nicklinson-condemned-to-suffer-7865905.html

His application is opposed by the ministry of Justice on the grounds that to change the law in such circumstances is a matter for Parliament and not for the courts.

This is one of those classic dilemmas which our courts are called upon to resolve. Should a person who is fully competent be able to say – ‘enough is enough’? It is self evident that he cannot take his own life as even that is dependant on help from others. Or should the judges retain the status quo and declare that, despite his clear wishes, it would still be an offence for a doctor to assist him.

My own view is that in these extreme circumstances a person’s wishes should be respected. This is not a case of the courts making a decision for him. It is his own choice.

But equally it is a massive responsibility for the judges and it would be equally understandable if they left it to Parliament. It will be interesting to see the result. Watch this space..

www.eadsolicitors.co.uk