reform the no win no fee to make it less lucrative for solicitors

 the compensation culture is being driven by a greedy and amoral  section of society who in essence use the claiments as a conduite to enrich themselves. At the very least stop  their constant advertising on commercial radio and t v.

Why is this idea important?

 the compensation culture is being driven by a greedy and amoral  section of society who in essence use the claiments as a conduite to enrich themselves. At the very least stop  their constant advertising on commercial radio and t v.

Repeal of Sections 11-17 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Services Act 2000 and Section 7 of the Childrens Act 1989: abolition of CAFCASS.

 

"I can hardly read the literature on Family Law without simultaneous feelings of an awful sadness and profound rage. Sadness at what has been done to our children and their families and deep rage for our Family Courts and the inadequate practitioners that work within it."
Sir Bob Geldhof, Forward to the Custody Minefield Report Report,  "Relocation and Leave to Remove", December 2009.
 
Many of these inadequate practitioners work for The Children and Family Court Advisory and Supervisory Service (CAFCASS). CAFCASS was established under Sections 11-17 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Services Act 2000. In private law they mainly provide reports under Section 7 of the Children's Act 1989, the welfare report. CAFCASS also took over the role of the Official Solicitor in representing children party to proceedings, as Legal Guardians, in mainly public and in some private law cases.
 
In private law, it is time to give up on Section 7 of the Children’s Act 1989 and abolish CAFCASS along with it. In private law proceedings, if there are matters raised which are sufficiently serious to warrant a welfare investigation, the case should be moved to public law with the local authority to carry out the investigation. The welfare investigation should then be made to the timescales and standards of a S.47 and Core Assessment (35 days). As an alternative, independent experts could be jointly instructed and paid for by parties or, when appropriate, through Legal Aid. It is a measure of the inadequacy of CAFCASS that in the vast majority of cases it would work out cheaper to pay £2,000 for a reliable report in four weeks than wait six to nine months for CAFCASS to produce an inadequate one. 
 
In public law, children would be better represented by people who know and understand them and can express their views, preferably drawn from their wider family or community and if necessary from the voluntary sector. It does not require the inadequate practitioners from a state service.  
 
There is no need for CAFCASS at all. 

Why is this idea important?

 

"I can hardly read the literature on Family Law without simultaneous feelings of an awful sadness and profound rage. Sadness at what has been done to our children and their families and deep rage for our Family Courts and the inadequate practitioners that work within it."
Sir Bob Geldhof, Forward to the Custody Minefield Report Report,  "Relocation and Leave to Remove", December 2009.
 
Many of these inadequate practitioners work for The Children and Family Court Advisory and Supervisory Service (CAFCASS). CAFCASS was established under Sections 11-17 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Services Act 2000. In private law they mainly provide reports under Section 7 of the Children's Act 1989, the welfare report. CAFCASS also took over the role of the Official Solicitor in representing children party to proceedings, as Legal Guardians, in mainly public and in some private law cases.
 
In private law, it is time to give up on Section 7 of the Children’s Act 1989 and abolish CAFCASS along with it. In private law proceedings, if there are matters raised which are sufficiently serious to warrant a welfare investigation, the case should be moved to public law with the local authority to carry out the investigation. The welfare investigation should then be made to the timescales and standards of a S.47 and Core Assessment (35 days). As an alternative, independent experts could be jointly instructed and paid for by parties or, when appropriate, through Legal Aid. It is a measure of the inadequacy of CAFCASS that in the vast majority of cases it would work out cheaper to pay £2,000 for a reliable report in four weeks than wait six to nine months for CAFCASS to produce an inadequate one. 
 
In public law, children would be better represented by people who know and understand them and can express their views, preferably drawn from their wider family or community and if necessary from the voluntary sector. It does not require the inadequate practitioners from a state service.  
 
There is no need for CAFCASS at all. 

Remove solicitors’ right to ‘no-win-no-fee’ deals

Many pieces of legislation, I am thinking particularly of health & safety  are perfectly reasonable and if that accident happened to you, you would be very aggrieved. 


 

Why is this idea important?

Many pieces of legislation, I am thinking particularly of health & safety  are perfectly reasonable and if that accident happened to you, you would be very aggrieved. 


 

All official answers must be committal not noncommittal

This applies to every answer given by a government minister or office, civil servant, MP, councillor etc, other public office or commission of any nature, or business answering an enquiry about problems with its product, inclduing lawyers.

Everything stated in every answer given in an official capacity, i.e. as part of these folks' jobs, must be definite about all facts involved. if total factual certainty does not exist, the extent to which it does must be stated definitely. The words "unfortuately", "regrettably", and all synonyms used similarly, should be banned. Phrases like "you feel" or "you consider", that take the committal factuality out of a sentence, should be banned, and provision made for any new such phrase that bureaucrats are seen to coin and use, to be banned too upon its existence being demonstrated.

If the recipient of the answer perceives that any statement in it is noncommittal, s/he will be entitled to write back stating and explaining how that is, and to demand, as an enforceable right, a reply where the writer of the statement has to show, word by word, that it is watertightly committal and definite.

Why is this idea important?

This applies to every answer given by a government minister or office, civil servant, MP, councillor etc, other public office or commission of any nature, or business answering an enquiry about problems with its product, inclduing lawyers.

Everything stated in every answer given in an official capacity, i.e. as part of these folks' jobs, must be definite about all facts involved. if total factual certainty does not exist, the extent to which it does must be stated definitely. The words "unfortuately", "regrettably", and all synonyms used similarly, should be banned. Phrases like "you feel" or "you consider", that take the committal factuality out of a sentence, should be banned, and provision made for any new such phrase that bureaucrats are seen to coin and use, to be banned too upon its existence being demonstrated.

If the recipient of the answer perceives that any statement in it is noncommittal, s/he will be entitled to write back stating and explaining how that is, and to demand, as an enforceable right, a reply where the writer of the statement has to show, word by word, that it is watertightly committal and definite.

that housing law shall consist only of clear facts that disprove their own opposites

This is to enact a blanket principle, that simply states: in all law concerning occupancy of your  home, as owner or tenant, every fact of law or point of law that is true shall be absolutely true with no shades of uncertainty, and shall disprove that its opposite is true.

This is to prevent manipulation and swindling by your solicitor. At present, there can be all sorts of complications arising from planning issues, certifying the completion of extensions, or "burdens", duties attached to a piece of land for murky reasons of its history. When these complications or any others arise, you are left to rely on your solicitor's opinion, with no definite reference point to say it is right or wrong, and solicitors are allowed to have different conflicting opinions on the same thing yet both count as right. This is manipulation, it leaves you with no entitlement to know for certain what the law is that you are trying to comply with.

These things are true in both the English and Scottish systems.

Why is this idea important?

This is to enact a blanket principle, that simply states: in all law concerning occupancy of your  home, as owner or tenant, every fact of law or point of law that is true shall be absolutely true with no shades of uncertainty, and shall disprove that its opposite is true.

This is to prevent manipulation and swindling by your solicitor. At present, there can be all sorts of complications arising from planning issues, certifying the completion of extensions, or "burdens", duties attached to a piece of land for murky reasons of its history. When these complications or any others arise, you are left to rely on your solicitor's opinion, with no definite reference point to say it is right or wrong, and solicitors are allowed to have different conflicting opinions on the same thing yet both count as right. This is manipulation, it leaves you with no entitlement to know for certain what the law is that you are trying to comply with.

These things are true in both the English and Scottish systems.

Reinstate the law banning solicitors from advertising

Compensation claims for negligence, etc. have their place in life.  However, since solicitors were allowed to advertise the number of cases has increased dramatically.  The term 'Compensation Culture' has entered the language and is doing immense harm – see below.

The industry, as such it has become, is driven by the advertisements of solicitors for lucrative trade.  Our privacy is also getting increasingly invaded by touts in the high streets and cold telephone calls encouraging people to make claims with the promise of generous compensation.

Why is this idea important?

Compensation claims for negligence, etc. have their place in life.  However, since solicitors were allowed to advertise the number of cases has increased dramatically.  The term 'Compensation Culture' has entered the language and is doing immense harm – see below.

The industry, as such it has become, is driven by the advertisements of solicitors for lucrative trade.  Our privacy is also getting increasingly invaded by touts in the high streets and cold telephone calls encouraging people to make claims with the promise of generous compensation.

Repeal sections 12(1)(a)&(b) Legal Services Act 2007

Repeal the monopoly that regulated lawyers have on conducting litigation and having rights of audience in court.

The only argument in favour of it is the (theoretical) one that the type of matter determined by the courts are so important to the litigants that it is imperative that they be guided by experts so that their cases can be properly presented.

However with between 1/5th and 1/4th (if not more) of the population unable to afford the huge fees charged by solicitors and barristers, this argument has become a moral outrage. It is a complete subversion of the whole notion of professional standards to use them to defend a position which essentially says that it is better than people have no chance whatsoever of protecting their rights, or defending them against attack (because they cannot afford to) than they take a chance with an advocate not quite so highly trained.

Also:

1. The Crown Prosecution Service now has Associate Prosecutors (i.e. paralegal prosecutors)

2. Civil Justice Reforms mean that litigants-in-person can now, at least theoretically, conduct their own cases – so why not a competent, professional non-lawyer?

3. The current prohibition is increasingly flouted. Numerous individual judges now allow paralegal law firms to conduct litigation/have rights of audience under the general exemption under sections 21/22 or 26/27 (can't recall exact clause now – sorry) of the Courts & Legal Services Act 2001 because they're so worried about denial of access to justice.

Why is this idea important?

Repeal the monopoly that regulated lawyers have on conducting litigation and having rights of audience in court.

The only argument in favour of it is the (theoretical) one that the type of matter determined by the courts are so important to the litigants that it is imperative that they be guided by experts so that their cases can be properly presented.

However with between 1/5th and 1/4th (if not more) of the population unable to afford the huge fees charged by solicitors and barristers, this argument has become a moral outrage. It is a complete subversion of the whole notion of professional standards to use them to defend a position which essentially says that it is better than people have no chance whatsoever of protecting their rights, or defending them against attack (because they cannot afford to) than they take a chance with an advocate not quite so highly trained.

Also:

1. The Crown Prosecution Service now has Associate Prosecutors (i.e. paralegal prosecutors)

2. Civil Justice Reforms mean that litigants-in-person can now, at least theoretically, conduct their own cases – so why not a competent, professional non-lawyer?

3. The current prohibition is increasingly flouted. Numerous individual judges now allow paralegal law firms to conduct litigation/have rights of audience under the general exemption under sections 21/22 or 26/27 (can't recall exact clause now – sorry) of the Courts & Legal Services Act 2001 because they're so worried about denial of access to justice.

Stop Solicitors stealing from the Dead, – repeal the Solicitors Act 1974.

The 1974 Solicitors Act should be repealed, because the ‘Rights and Privileges’ the Government bestowed upon the solicitors’ trade union membership “The Law Society”, to be a self-regulatory body, has been abused for too long and should be withdrawn, as soon as it is possible to do, as Solicitors have become – a profession beyond the Law.

Why is this idea important?

The 1974 Solicitors Act should be repealed, because the ‘Rights and Privileges’ the Government bestowed upon the solicitors’ trade union membership “The Law Society”, to be a self-regulatory body, has been abused for too long and should be withdrawn, as soon as it is possible to do, as Solicitors have become – a profession beyond the Law.

Repeal the laws which allowed solicitors, claims companies and lawyers to advertise

Some years ago the law was changed to allow solicitors and lawyers to advertise. Since then we have seen a compensation culture supported by companies that actively encourage claims for even the most trivial of alleged injuries or offences.

Why is this idea important?

Some years ago the law was changed to allow solicitors and lawyers to advertise. Since then we have seen a compensation culture supported by companies that actively encourage claims for even the most trivial of alleged injuries or offences.