The legal year in 60 seconds

GLOBAL LAW SUMMIT

Magna Carta was all the rage in 2015, as the UK celebrated the 800th anniversary of the signing of the Great Charter. Even the then Lord Chancellor, Chris Grayling, not known for his appreciation of the rule of law, got in on the act by hosting the Global Law Summit in the heart of London in February. Unsurprisingly, Grayling drew criticism from both inside and outside his government-backed ‘jamboree’. Lawyers marched from Runnymede to the Houses of Parliament in protest at cuts to legal aid, while a member of the House of Lords attacked the justice secretary for ‘throwing cold water’ over the charter’s legacy. Lord David Pannick QC criticised Grayling’s reforms to judicial review, saying: ‘Mr Grayling acted in this way because he said, and I quote: “judicial review has become a promotional tool for countless left wing campaigners”. I hope that this summit will send a message to Mr Grayling. My message to him is that if you wrap yourself in the Magna Carta – as he does – you are inevitably going to look ridiculous if you then throw cold water on an important part of its legacy, that is, judicial review.’ Pannick was applauded, much to the possible embarrassment of Lord Faulks QC, the justice minister, who was also in attendance.

BILLABLE HOUR APPEAL

Few would have failed to be touched by images of the lifeless body of three-year-old Aylan Kurdi washed up on a beach in Turkey in September. As the true horror of the Syrian refugee crisis struck home in the UK, one top silk decided to do something about it. Sean Jones QC of 11KBW launched a billable hour appeal, requesting that members of the legal profession donate one billable hour to Save the Children. A modest target of just £7,500 quickly snowballed as lawyers of all shapes and sizes gave generously. Smashing his target by 2,691 per cent, Jones helped raise over £201,000 for child refugees, an achievement that was reported beyond the legal trade press and reminded the UK of its humanity.

SIDESTEPPING CHAMBERS

One of the UK’s largest criminal legal aid firms bypassed barristers chambers in June by instructing independent advocates for magistrates’ hearings and crown court appearances. Tuckers Solicitors, which, according to Ministry of Justice (MoJ) figures, earned the most from publicly funded criminal cases in 2011/12 with £8.27m in fees, launched a new online service to enhance integration between firms and advocates at the expense of chambers. The move came less than a week after the Criminal Bar Association’s (CBA) executive committee declared it would not join in proposed industrial action against plans to implement a second 8.75 per cent cut to legal aid solicitors. In an SJ exclusive, Adam Makepeace, Tuckers’s practice manager, explained that www.crimediary.co.uk could be used by any registered firm, independent barrister, or virtual chambers. ‘By combining the diaries of multiple firms of solicitors (subject to appropriate regulatory checks and balances) onto a single database,’ he said, ‘we now have the ability to seek to instruct advocates to cover a list of hearings, rather than potentially being instructed on a single matter.’

GRAYLING v GOVE

Rumours of a change at the top of 102 Petty France should have been music to the ears of many legal aid practitioners. However, the announcement that Michael Gove was to replace Grayling at the MoJ was instead greeted with dismay by lawyers. The man who the National Union of Teachers once dubbed a ‘demented Dalek’ who wanted to ‘exterminate anything good in education’ became responsible for the nation’s justice system. The new justice secretary was instantly thrown into the fray and tasked with quelling an increasingly unified profession against further cuts to legal aid. As lawyers downed tools, Gove employed a tactic straight out of Grayling’s playbook by announcing his decision not to proceed with cuts to the advocates’ graduated fee scheme, as the UK needed a ‘vibrant independent Bar’. Divisions had already appeared between the leadership of solicitor and barrister groups over whether to proceed with their ‘strike’. Tensions continued to rise as the government failed to bow to the profession’s demands – even as the dispute began to gain traction in the national press. The legal aid boycott was eventually suspended after 52 days in a ‘sign of goodwill’ by practitioner groups as negotiations continued with the MoJ.

DUTY CRIME CONTRACTS

The duty solicitor tendering process was mired in controversy long before being described as ‘beyond contempt’, a ‘disgrace’, and an ‘omnishambles’ by exasperated criminal lawyers in October. On what was billed as ‘D-Day for legal aid’, law firms across the country discovered if they were among the lucky few to win one of the contracts to provide 24-hour police station coverage. Some firms, however, had to wait until midnight to discover their fates, as frustration boiled over on social media. Unsuccessful criminal solicitors were never likely to go quietly into the night, however, especially after a whisteblower announced that the procurement process was ‘flawed’ due to inadequate training provided to temporary workers at the Legal Aid Agency. The government now faces multiple litigation and a ‘nuclear’ judicial review in the High Court as Gove defends the process.

COURT FEE HIKE

The government’s decision to raise civil court fees in 2015 drew criticism for the creation of a two-tier justice system. The MoJ increased fees by over 600 per cent at the beginning of the year in what was described as a ‘tax on justice’. Claims worth over £10,000 were charged 5 per cent of their value and a £10,000 fee cap was introduced for claims over £200,000. However, just a few months after the hike, a new consultation was launched to assess if the fee cap should be doubled. With the courts and tribunals costing £1.7bn a year, and only £700m received as income, justice minister Shailesh Vara said it was ‘right that we ask for a greater contribution from court users who can afford to pay more’. In a partial victory for the legal profession, the government bowed to pressure and agreed to maintain the current cap, though a general 10 per cent uplift of fees has been confirmed.

CRIMINAL COURTS CHARGE

Since April, magistrates and judges have been required to impose a mandatory charge of up to £1,200 on those convicted of offences, regardless of an individual’s financial circumstances. The charge was introduced by Chris Grayling – yes, him again – shortly before the dissolution of parliament for the general election. The policy was widely condemned for forcing defendants to plead at the earliest opportunity, irrespective of actual guilt. Over 50 magistrates resigned in protest, citing unfair economic pressure on defendants, while academics suggested that the grossly disproportionate charge was the start of a US-style plea bargaining system. The Justice Select Committee concluded that the charge fettered judicial discretion and created a perverse incentive for defendants to plead guilty. Gove recently revealed the ‘short-lived and much-hated’ charge was to be scrapped from 24 December 2015. A Christmas miracle.

SMALL CLAIMS

In November, lawyers hit back at George Osborne’s ‘callous’ plans to raise the small claims limit for personal injury claims and scrap general damages for ‘minor’ whiplash injuries. Presenting his Autumn Statement, the chancellor said the government planned to remove the right to general damages for soft tissue injuries and increase the small claims limit to £5,000, as it was ‘determined’ to crack down on the ‘fraud and claims culture’. The president of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL), Jonathan Wheeler, said: ‘Government figures show whiplash claims have fallen by more than a third in the past four years. Yet still insurance premiums have increased. Only two years ago the government ruled out increasing the small claims court limit because there were no adequate safeguards to protect genuine claimants. There are still no adequate safeguards.’

SEXIST ATTITUDES

Allegations of sexism within the profession once again resurfaced in 2015. Brown Rudnick partner Alexander Carter-Silk was outed on social media following disclosure of an ‘unacceptable and misogynistic’ email exchange between him and barrister Charlotte Proudman. The intellectual property expert’s defence that his comment – which was ‘unfortunately misinterpreted’ – was aimed at the ‘professional quality’ of Proudman’s LinkedIn photo didn’t hold much water. Neither, it must be said, did Lord Sumption’s remarks that a rush to equal representation at the top of the legal pyramid would lead to ‘appalling consequences’ for the quality of British justice. Sumption, who was fast-tracked to the Supreme Court in 2012, said that eventually the judiciary would get somewhere close to parity on gender – in another 50 years by his reckoning. But as SJ pointed out, it has been almost a century since women were allowed to practice law, yet they are still waiting for equality.

BILL OF RIGHTS

The proposed introduction of a British Bill of Rights faced a furious backlash from all corners following news that Gove had been tasked with scrapping the Human Rights Act within the first 100 days of the new parliament. Those 100 days came and went, however, with no sign of the fabled Bill. The latest delay comes from Downing Street and relates to the possibility of a ‘complex’ constitutional change to the Supreme Court. It is because of these ‘huge questions’ that Gove’s consultation document will now be produced in the new year. Or maybe not. Would anyone lay bets against another embarrassing delay?