Report #19: Law practice profile – Brian Inkster of Inksters, Scotland.

There are three distinct legal systems in the United Kingdom: Scotland, Northern Ireland and England & Wales – each subject to the appellate jurisdiction (save for criminal cases in Scotland) of the United Kingdom Supreme Court.

Over the course of the next year, as I resume my UK Tour, I shall be looking at, among many other issues, the many and various ways law is practiced in the UK from sole practitioners to traditional High Street firms through to the new models arising from the Legal Services Act like Riverview Law and Lawyers On Demand and on to the rarefied echelons of ‘City’ practice with the ‘Magic Circle’ and BIGLAW law firms of the City and other commercial centres.

The Law Society of Scotland quoted Lord Wallace in a recent tweet: “We have a very modern legal profession with expertise across a broad range of areas”

Today – and I plan to do a follow up podcast with Brian Inkster, Solicitor of the Year in 2006 – I am looking at the impact a small, but growing, law firm in Scotland has made in but a few short years – Inksters. I reveal, at once, that Brian Inkster is a friend. My focus is on Brian’s use of social media and blogging as a tool for marketing his firm’s expertise. I shall ask Brian more about the way he practices law when I do the podcast with him later in the tour.
Scots lawyers have told me that Inksters is a firm that punches above its weight. A quick look at the history of Inksters will give you an insight into the way Inksters has developed and is an interesting read. It is worth drawing attention to the fact that Inksters, competing against some very well known Scots law firms, was one of six nominees for Litigation Firm of the Year in 2008.

Turning to specialist legal practice interests and the use of social media (Inksters was the first law firm in Scotland to use Twitter on 11 February 2009).

I met Brian Inkster initially on Twitter and later at an Italian Restaurant – we sat outside on a balmy Autumn evening, I recall, in Battersea Square. I enjoyed the evening and it was very clear to me that Brian, a man with considerable energy, had an innovative approach to marketing and the use of social media. Those who follow Brian on Twitter will know that he engages well with lawyers and non-lawyers alike. His many twitter accounts do not simply ‘broadcast’ – ‘they’ respond to questions and are more than prepared to engage in discussion – a valuable lesson some other law firms could benefit from.

Blogging can be a powerful tool for marketing if done well. There are many good examples of lawyer blogs which provide insight, analysis and comment into specialist areas of law. I apologise for any omissions – there are too many to list, pleasingly, but here is a small selection of some of the well known blogs written by lawyers: Nearly Legal, Conflict of Laws.net, The Bung Blog, Jack of Kent, The UKSC blog, Family Lore, The UK Human Rights blog.

Here is a more comprehensive survey of lawyer blogs which I covered in UK Blawg Review #10.

And on the issue of blogging – Brian Inkster has several styles – the light hearted yet insightful – The TimeBlawg – and the more serious.

Inksters Solicitors launched a dedicated Crofting Law Blog on 18 March 2013.

Over the three weeks prior to that Inksters posted eleven crofting law related news items on their general website. Most of these relate to the crofting law debacle created by the Crofting Commission when they suddenly announced that they were no longer processing applications to decroft (i.e. remove land from crofting tenure) made by owner-occupier crofters. The Scottish Government last week announced that it will introduce a Bill to correct the “flaw” in crofting legislation detected by the Crofting Commission. Brian Inkster has questioned whether there is in fact a flaw to remedy and clarity is still awaited from the Crofting Commission / Scottish Government as to what this flaw actually is. To date they have refused to publish the legal advice that they have obtained.

Brian Inkster said “Crofting law appears to be in turmoil in a way that has possibly not been seen since it was introduced in 1886. The time is surely ripe for a crofting law blog to air the issues arising in an open, clear and transparent way.”

While Crofting Law is a specialist legal topic – there is no doubt that Inksters will build their profile in this field with this new legal blog and resource.

Brian Inkster does not take himself too seriously – I thoroughly enjoyed (as did others) his use of Christmas Hat cards as a subtle marketing initiative

In the podcast, later on my tour, I will ask Brian Inkster about his approach to the practice of law. The Inksters website is well worth a look at as an example of law firm marketing, and for those of you who want to bone up on your crofting law – you know where to go!

Finally – it has to be said that Brian does a ‘mean tango’ – why am I not surprised? This interview on 22 tweets will give you an insight!

Report #18: John Cooper QC on the CPS guidelines on social media

Tour Lawcast 14: John Cooper QC on the CPS guidelines on social media

“Well I don’t think John Cooper with all respect has seen anything like the number of cases I have. I don’t think he has thought about the sophistication of the issues. There are many cases…I mean he can point to one case [the Twitter Joke Trial]…yeah he makes a cheap point about one case, I’ve got to deal with the many thousands of cases that come in, I’ve got to deal with all the chief constables. So, yes, nice cheap point, but actually let’s get back to reality.”

These are the reported words of Director of Public prosecutions Keir Starmer QC following the issuing of new guidelines on social media prosecutions when he was placed under pressure by criticism raised by an experienced criminal silk, John Cooper QC.

Speaking on Radio 5 John Cooper QC said of the guidelines …“totally and utterly unnecessary”, adding that the 25 pages would be better condensed to “two words: common sense”.

Today, I talk to John Cooper QC about the CPS guidelines on Social Media.

Listen to the podcast

iTunes version of the podcast

Report #17: The Jackson Reforms and costs with Sue Nash

Tour Report #17: The Jackson Reforms and costs with Sue Nash

“Let there be no doubt about it, the reforms will come into force next
April”.

“It would not be an exaggeration to say that from my perspective costs management is the key to the Jackson reforms. If it succeeds the reforms will succeed. If it doesn’t, then we run a risk that costs will unnecessarily and otherwise avoidably increase and the reforms will fail”.

“I do not want to give the impression that I do not have faith in the reforms. It might seem that I am already expecting disaster. That is very far from the case. But one has to be realistic”

Lord Dyson MR

Today, I am talking with Sue Nash of Litigation Costs Services at the offices of Kysen PR in London.

The Jackson Reforms – in particular the issue of costs and retainers.

1. A brief overview of the main aspects of the reforms – Costs Management/Budgeting, Provisional Assessment, new proportionality rule, new/revised funding arrangements i.e. DBAs/CFAs and the referral fee ban

2. Costs management/budgeting – how it is supposed to work and what firms need to do to prepare for it – analysis of historic ‘data (work) and recording and planning future work – need for specialist input from costs specialists – using them as part of the litigation team/process.

3. Provisional assessment – likely impact will be to discourage firms from seeking oral hearings to dispute the PA.

4. Retainers

5. Round-up – all reforms supposed to be looked at together and taken as a package – overall impact on Claimant PI firms/departments likely to be a fee income reduction of between 25 and 50% over the next 2-3 years (higher value cases will be less affected). Get in expert help and spend time now – they need to know if their current business models are viable going forward and if not need to change them.

Listen to the podcast

iTunes version of the podcast

Useful Links:

Review of Civil Litigation costs

Legal Futures – Jackson reforms

Omnia software

Report #16: On Human Rights law with Kirsty Brimelow QC and Francis FitzGibbon QC

Tour Report #16: On Human Rights law with Kirsty Brimelow QC and Francis FitzGibbon QC

Littman, David G. (January 19, 2003). “Human Rights and Human Wrongs”. National Review (New York). “The principal aim of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was to create a framework for a universal code based on mutual consent. The early years of the United Nations were overshadowed by the division between the democratic and communist conceptions of human rights, although neither side called into question the concept of universality. The debate centered on which “rights” — political, economic, and social — were to be included among the Universal Instruments.”

Human rights law is at the very foundation of our Rule of Law. Today, I am talking to two of the leading crime and human rights lawyers – Kirsty Brimelow QC, the new Chair of the Bar Human Rights Committee and Francis FitzGibbon QC, both of Doughty Street Chambers.

1. What are human rights and the importance of human rights – The Rule of Law – Lord Bingham’s famous question about which human rights would you like to lose.

2. Overview of the European Convention and ECtHR work

3. The HRA and coalition government plans for a ‘British Bill of Rights’

4. Human Rights hard cases – Qatada et al / prisoner votes et al

5. Press and public attitudes to the Human Rights Act

6. The role of The Bar in promoting human rights – British foreign policy predicated to some extent on countries complying with human rights

Listen to the podcast

 

iTunes version of the podcast

Report #15: podcast with Alex Aldridge, Editor of Legal Cheek

Tour Report 15: podcast with Alex Aldridge, Editor of Legal Cheek

Today, at the offices of Kysen PR in Covent Garden, London I talk with Alex Aldridge, editor of Legal Cheek, about his serious yet irreverent online ‘legal tabloid’ Legal Cheek and the role of law bloggers in observing the state of the legal nation.

Listen to the podcast

iTunes version of the podcast

 

Report #14: The Leveson Report

Picture:  With the permission of Stephen Punter

Without Prejudice lawcast: The Leveson Report with Carl Gardner, Jez Hindmarsh and David Allen Green

The BBC reports:

Would:

• Create a process to “validate” the independence and effectiveness of the new self-regulation body
• Validate a new process of independent arbitration for complainants – which would benefit both the public and publishers by providing speedy resolutions
• Place a duty on government to protect the freedom of press

Would not:

• Establish a body to regulate the press directly
• Give any Parliament or government rights to interfere with what newspapers publish

Listen to the podcast

iTunesversion

Our thanks to Gray’s Inn for hosting the recording.

***

Useful resources

On Leveson, David David Allen Green

http://www.newstatesman.com/david-allen-green/2012/11/what-look-out-leveson-report

Carl Gardner on Leveson

http://www.headoflegal.com/2012/11/28/we-must-have-statutory-regulation-and-libertion-of-the-press/

The Guardian essential guide

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/nov/28/leveson-inquiry-report-essential-guide#106

and INFORRM’s

http://inforrm.wordpress.com/2012/11/28/what-is-media-regulation-six-different-models/#more-18318

The MST:

http://mediastandardstrust.org/

HackedOff:

http://hackinginquiry.org/

The FSN:

http://freespeechnetwork.wordpress.com/

The Leveson Report

***

My initial thoughts on the issue….

Leveson:  We could be walking into problems with Article 10, European Convention on Human Rights.

ARTICLE 10, European Convention on Human Rights
Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right
shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart
information and ideas without interference by public authority
and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States
from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema
enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it
duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities,
conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and
are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national
security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention
of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for
the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing
the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for
maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

Having now read a fair bit of the important sections of The Leveson Report, I am coming to the view that the main benefit of The Leveson Report lies in catharsis – many have had their opportunity to express dissatisfaction with the way the Press has behaved – and that we should be very wary of implementing the Leveson Report proposals with ‘statutory underpinning’. Had the existing law – civil and criminal – been enforced by government, police and private individuals whose reputations had been traduced – there would, it is argued reasonably, have been no need for The Leveson Inquiry

I am wary of any regulation of the Press by government – quite apart from the fact that it may breach Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, raising the possibility that such statutory underpinning could be tested before the European Court of Human Rights with unfortunate results – and, possibly unintended consequences.

David Rose writing in the Mail on Sunday, notes:

“At the heart of her objections to the Leveson report is that any new law that made the government quango Ofcom the ‘backstop regulator’ with sweeping powers to punish newspapers would violate Article 10 of the European Convention On Human Rights which guarantees free speech and is enshrined in Britain’s Human Rights Act, too.”

One of Lord Justice Leveson’s key advisers last night delivered the bombshell verdict that his demand for compulsory press regulation would be illegal.

In an exclusive interview with The Mail on Sunday, Shami Chakrabarti, director of the civil rights group Liberty, said any such clampdown would breach the Human Rights Act and be open to legal challenge.

Her intervention is hugely significant because as one of only six ‘assessors’ who helped guide the inquiry and its conclusions, her position threatens the viability of key parts of the report.

Director of Liberty, Shami Chakrabarti argues:

She said: ‘We were chosen as advisers because of our areas of expertise. Mine is human-rights law and civil liberties. In a democracy, regulation of the press and imposing standards on it must be voluntary.

‘A compulsory statute to regulate media ethics in the way the report suggests would violate the Act, and I cannot support it.

‘It would mean the press was being coerced in being held to higher standards than anyone else, and this would be unlawful.’

Of Hacked Off, Ms Chakrabarti said: ‘I understand that people who have been wronged want action. But they should be interested in outcomes, rather than particular processes.

‘The outcome they should be seeking is a free and vibrant press with access to justice for the public when things go wrong.

While Lord Justice Leveson produced a through report into the press, the police and politicians and their interconnections – constructing an elegant solution to the problem with his proposals for self regulation underpinned by law – as the editor of Private Eye, Ian Hislop points out in a pithy statement to The Independent:

Why can’t we just enforce the laws? The ones we already have against phone hacking, harassment, libel, bribery etc etc. For instance Leveson is very critical of the treatment of Christopher Jefferies but I don’t understand why the Attorney General couldn’t have rung the editors of the papers concerned that morning to say “Stop! This is contempt of court.” Why not prosecute those editors?

If the reason is because the Attorney General’s boss is the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister is too close to the newspaper proprietors, then that in itself is a perfectly good argument not to have state regulation because the politicians can’t be trusted. In so many of the appalling cases that have turned the public mood against the press it seems to me there is a failing not only by the press but by the police and the legal establishment.

The report’s not “bonkers” but I don’t like the principle that it is under-pinned by the state and I don’t like the idea that all significant news providers are answerable to Ofcom. Maybe I will have to declare the Eye “insignificant”.

I’m still reading The Leveson Report – and open to persuasion. I do hope politicians take time to digest the entire Leveson Report before rushing to legislate on press freedom – a matter of great importance to our society and our standing in the world.

It might be an idea to provide resources to enforce existing laws and encourage press self regulation underpinned not by further legislation but by existing criminal and civil laws – and reform the law of libel and privacy to provide a cheaper resolution basis when things go wrong while they are at it? We certainly need to reduce the ‘chilling’ effects of high costs in libel and privacy actions. Is that so difficult to achieve through law? Leveson was right on that issue. The Press has to step up to the plate and provide a credible and respected medium for self regulation.

These are my initial views – a dissent to the clamour of many for state intervention, to be sure, but views which, I believe, I am still free to express – for the moment, at least. Enforce the existing laws? Don’t risk further government intervention down the line by providing a statutory framework for the press now? These ideas don’t seem that radical to me – but do feel free, please, to convince me of the error of my initial thoughts on this important issue.

On the other hand – we might not have Article 10 problems. Hugh Tomlinson QC considers this here: Is compulsory regulation of the print media compatible with Article 10 ECHR? – Hugh Tomlinson QC

Leveson and Legality: implementation of the Report would not be Illegal – Hugh Tomlinson QC

Report #13: Social media and the employment law implications with Sean Jones QC

Social media, particularly Facebook and Twitter, is being widely used now and it is not without dangers. The recent Lord McAlpine libel litigation, cyber-stalking, tweets which break the contempt of court laws – all have a ‘chilling’ effect on ‘free speech’. Employers are increasingly turning to Twitter and Facebook to check out future employees and to monitor the behaviour of current employees.

Today, I am talking with Sean Jones QC of 11 KBW, a leading employment and public law set. We look at the employment law implications for use of social media in some depth and discuss the important case of Smith v Trafford Housing Trust [2012] EWHC 3221 (Ch)

We then move on to discuss practice at the Bar, the immediate to medium term prospects for barristers and Sean Jones QC provides some advice for prospective barristers.

Listen to the podcast

iTunes version of the podcast

Report #12: Avoiding Extinction: Reimagining Legal Services with Toronto lawyer Mitchell E Kowalski

Avoiding Extinction: Reimagining Legal Services

“The past few years have seen incredible innovation and growth in the way legal services can be delivered–yet most law firms around the world continue to practice law the way it’s been practiced for centuries, namely, as a labor-intensive endeavor carried out by high-priced lawyers billing by the hour.”

I’m talking with Toronto lawyer Mitchell Kowalski the author of Avoiding Extinction: Reimagining Legal Services. Avoiding Extinction makes the case for how the law firm of the future will succeed, with a laser-like focus on delivering high-quality legal services better, faster, and cheaper. This entertaining and instructive book is a must-read for anyone seeking a creative vision into what a new, truly different law firm could look like.

The podcast:

Your book – why did you choose the fictional law firm Bowen Fong and Chandri PC – the medium of a novel – for your book?

A utopian construct or capable of practical reality?

The billable hour v value billing debate

Comparison with UK – UK firms Lawyers on Demand and Riverview Law?

Five key propositions for delivering legal services you regard as the most innovative and important

* Billing
* Knowledge Management
* The People at the top set the tune for the middle
* Legal process outsourcing – the more money you save, the more money you earn
* Project management – if you can’t map out all the processes you are doing you cannot value and price it.

Listen to the podcast

iTunesversion of the podcast

Report #11: An interview with Toby Craig, Head of Communications, The Bar Council

Report #11: An interview with Toby Craig, Head of Communications, The Bar Council

The Bar Council represents the interests of all barristers in England & Wales – the regulatory function being carried out by the independent Bar Standards Board.

Facing significant change in the way legal services are delivered in the wake of the Legal Services Act , increasing competition from solicitor-advocates and a government now cutting back on the provision of legal aid, proposing to restrict judicial review and pushing through legislation on secret trials – the role of the Bar Council in the legal profession is a very important one.

Last Sunday I did a podcast with John Cooper QC on the controversial issue of referral fees. Toby Craig, head of communications for The Bar Council contacted me soon after I published this podcast to ask if I would be prepared to do a podcast with him to enable The Bar Council to put their view.

The discussion with Toby Craig covered a number of controversial issues which members of the Bar have expressed concern to me about.

In this podcast we look at:

1. The Role of The Bar Council

2. The relationship of The Bar Council with government

3. The potential conflict of interest in relation to the Attorney-General who is the head of the Bar

4. Michael Turner QC’s robust criticisms published in The Daily Mirror: Injustice for all: Leading QC on why legal aid cuts and change in regulation is bad news for Britain

5. How democratic is the Bar Council and the controversy during the  recent  Criminal Bar Association elections

6. Criticism of The Bar Council raised in a report commissioned in 2011

7. Referral fees – the Bar stance is that referral fees are a breach of the Code of Practice and they will also give rise to civil and criminal liability – issues raised by Nicholas Lavender QC in June 2012. I ask Toby Craig what steps the Bar Council is taking to survey Chambers that may have paid or are currently engaged in paying referral fees to bring in work.

8. Social media and diversity at the Bar

The podcast raises important issues of representation and professional ethics and I welcome comment and discussion from members of the Bar and others with an interest.

Listen to the podcast

 

The iTunes version has had the sound boosted – for those using computers with no external speakers – click the link below to bring the file up in your browser.

iTunes version of the podcast

Report #10: Professor de Londras – Guantanamo and the key issues in human rights for Europe

UK Tour Report #10: Professor de Londras – Guantanamo and they key issues in human rights for Europe

We have a Bill of Rights in this country. It’s called the Human Rights Act and is thoroughly British, European and universal in its values”

Shami Chakrabarti, Liberty

Human rights underpins much of our law and we are in the midst of controversy yet again with a government appearing determined to avoid complying with the European Court of Human Rights in relation to prisoner votes and ‘disappointed’ with the recent judgment of SIAC in relation to Abu Qatada.

Today I am talking to Fiona De Londras, professor of law at Durham University. Her research primarily focuses on questions related to effective rights protection with a particular concentration on times of strain and crisis and especially counter-terrorism.

We look at the problems the US President faces with the closure of Guantanamo Bay – promised within a year of his inauguration as President four year ago – as a comparison with the difficulties the British government faces in relation to compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights – and then consider likely developments within human rights law in the United Kingdom in the next few years.

The plans announced yesterday by the government to limit the scope of judicial review – covered well by Adam Wagner at the UK Human Rights blog: A war on Judicial Review? [updated] – bring into sharp focus the need to examine how Britain will respond to the human rights agenda in the future.

Listen to the podcast

iTunes version of the podcast

***

I covered the Abu Qatada SIAC judgment with Carl Gardner in an earlier report: Here