* To mark the release of Torture Team, his new book about the enduring
international disgrace that is Guantanamo, Philippe Sands, QC, and
friends are hosting an evening at the Tricycle Theatre on Sunday, May
18. The blurb promises “an inquiry into the interrogation techniques used by
the American Administration and military”, featuring Vanessa Redgrave,
Joanna Lumley and Clive Stafford-Smith. Tickets are £50 or £75 for allocated
seats, with proceeds going to Reprieve, the human rights group founded by
Stafford-Smith, and the Medical Foundation for the Victims of Torture.
Details and booking at www.tricycle.co.uk. Torture Team is released in the
UK on May 1.
* Never mind national rebranding by the Law Society — the best way to promote
solicitors is on TV. Look out for Admin — a sitcom set
in a “no win, no fee” firm in Manchester being piloted by BBC
Three (Monday, May 12, 11 pm). The comedy follows the misadventures of
the Admin team at Fox Carter & Co who work for and with the
solicitors — yes, all the angles are there. Admin is written and created by
David Isaac and is based on his experiences as a supervising solicitor in a
Manchester firm, Michael Taylor Associates. The firm was very supportive but
it has not yet seen the programme. Perhaps it’s just as well — Isaac plans
to write full-time.
* Meanwhile, the hours of an ethics helpline (0870 606 2577) for
solicitors is being extended from 9am to 5pm on weekdays. The service, run
by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), handles 4,000 calls a month.
Whether solicitors are becoming more bothered about ethical issues or
whether they are fearful of the ever more draconian powers of their
regulators is not clear. Either way the helpline was not meeting demand. The
most common queries, says Liz McAnulty, SRA director of standards, are
conflicts of interest, confidentiality and disclosure rules.
* The good and the great were out in force on Monday at the Royal Courts of
Justice for a reception in aid of the RCJ’s Personal Support
Unit. Demands for the services of the seven-year-old unit that helps
unrepresented litigants are growing as more people seek to act for
themselves. Under the able directorship of Judith March, the unit has the
backing of a host of top judges, including the Lord Chief Justice, the
Master of the Rolls, Baroness Butler-Sloss, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury and
Sir Mark Potter, senior family judge and its president. The occasion was the
launch of the unit’s Friends scheme — Lord Phillips of Worth
Matravers praised the “unique and unrivalled work” of the small band of
volunteer lawyers and advisers and urged everyone to “dig deep” into their
pockets — particularly big corporate law firms — so its work could continue.
Details: www.thepsu.co.uk or e-mail friends@thepsu.co.uk
* Cherie Booth, QC, is still making the odd appearance on the legal
reception circuit: on Monday night she presented the Intendance Awards
for the best law firm websites for 2008. Fladgate Fielder was
nominated as having the worst website but it’s only fair to say that since
converting to an LLP Fladgate has launched a new site; and Withers
was commended for the most improved website. But the overall winner was Allen
& Overy for the “site most likely to win business”. No doubt the
firm can afford it after charging £5.2 million for work on a piece of
intellectual property litigation.
* Not the elections everyone else is focused on — but down at Chancery
Lane they are the ones that matter. As Andrew Holroyd, president of the
Law Society, heads into his final two months, his successor has been
announced: Paul Marsh will be president, Bob Heslett,
vice-president, and Linda Lee, a clinical negligence lawyer, deputy
vice-president. They take up their posts in July.
* These days getting publicity on the back of what your father did or does is
less common but Hill Dickinson has managed it with the arrival of Edward
de la Billiere. He has the rather large brief of heading its
white-collar crime and China/Far East teams. The name is, of course,
familiar — he is the son of Gulf War commander General, Sir Peter de la
Billiere. As well as being a solicitor-advocate, de la Billiere junior is
legal adviser to the Chinese Ministry of Commerce and the Embassy of the
People’s Republic of China in London. But like his dad, he clearly also
relishes a challenge — and has previously undertaken an 18-month trip to
fulfil a boyhood dream of racing huskies 1,000 miles across Alaska.
* The former Attorney-General, Lord Goldsmith, QC, can’t have had to
sit exams for some years. In his new role as chairman of European
litigation at Debevoise & Plimpton he is going to have to: the
role will see him getting back to advocacy but to do so he needs to complete
his qualified lawyer transfer test to become a solicitor and partner with
the US law firm. He told The Lawyer magazine: “My children have been teasing
me about the fact I’ve had to go back to school, so to speak. They ask me
whether I’ve packed by sharpened pencils for my exams.”
* Going green is one thing — but how to measure your carbon footprint?
The Legal Sector Alliance, an umbrella group of law firms (such as Burges
Salmon, DLA Piper) and other organisations working together to take action
on climate change, has come up the idea of a carbon footprint measuring
tool to encourage the legal profession to commit itself to environmental
sustainability. A survey by the alliance found that many firms have not
measured their footprint because they don’t know where to start. Des Hudson,
chief executive of the Law Society, said: “You can’t manage what you haven’t
measured, so calculation of your carbon foot print is absolutely crucial
before you take action to reduce it.” The tool being developed will include
protocols (for UK emissions only) and spreadsheets to help firms to
calculate their footprint. But so far no plans for a naming and shaming.
Hudson says: “It must be stressed that no firm using the protocol will be
required publicly to disclose the results.”
* Talking of naming and shaming, the Law Society is opposing plans from
the Legal Complaints Service to publish solicitor complaints
records. Des Hudson, chief executive, says that the move would be a
“mistake” and rebound to the public’s disadvantage. It could mislead clients
and take them away from competent solicitors, he argues. Clients are better
served, Hudson says, having a record of which firms provide excellent client
care. The service wants to publish records of inadequate professional
service (shoddy work) — of which 597 were upheld against solicitors last
year. But, says the society, there are nearly 9,000 firms in England and
Wales. So the data would relate only to 7 per cent — and not help clients
wanting to choose between the remaining 93 per cent. Also, cases might have
gone to adjudication because clients refused a reasonable offer of
compensation or the solicitor thought the complaint unjustified. The society
must be wishing it was back in the old days when it had control over the
complaints service.
* District judges are still chuckling about Mr Justice Bennett’s
“order” in the McCartney-Mills case. Apparently m’lud
didn’t follow the rules applied by district judges day in and
out, up and down the land. He had no power, they say, to make an order on
the finances unless and until the pronouncement of a decree nisi has taken
place. Even then, writes Stephen Gold, in the New Law Journal, any order is
still subject to a decree absolute. Mr Justice Bennett spent six days
hearing the parties’ contested ancillary relief case without the
pronouncement of a decree, Gold explains. The couple had agreed to the
staying of their defended divorce action with a view to one of them
presenting a fresh petition on or after May 1 — by which time they will have
been apart for a period of two years and can obtain an undefended divorce,
with consent. “A hearing has been arranged for May 12 — by when the judge
hopes to be able to pronounce a decree under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1972
s 1(2) (d) — consent still being available — and no doubt formally to make
his order for ancillary relief \.” What it all means is the order is not yet
made — and Ms Mills could in theory go back to court to relitigate.
