Tuesday was the fifth day of the line-by-line scrutiny of the Legal Aid bill in the Lords and it produced the first positive result for the opponents of the bill. The government announced that one of the most controversial elements of the bill – the means testing of suspects held in police stations – has been abandoned.

Former director of public prosecutions Lord Macdonald had just risen to propose an amendment to the much criticised clause 12 when, for the government, Lord McNally intervened. He said: “My Lords, if I may interrupt, this may ruin a few speeches but I think it will help if I say that the Government intend to table an amendment to Clause 12 on Report that will remove the power to introduce means testing for initial advice and assistance at the police station.” He went on to confirm that: “For an individual in custody at a police station, or other premises, legal aid will be provided under Clause 12.” At Report stage in the Commons last November, justice minister Djanogly had said: “I appreciate that there are many deeply held concerns across the House and more widely on both the principle and the practicality of means-testing for advice and assistance for those in police custody and in relation to the concept of contingent legislation…I can confirm that we will, therefore, carefully review our approach to these clause issues as the Bill goes through its stages in another place.” The promised review has borne fruit.

This was a welcome relief from the shadow boxing that has occupied the first five days of the Committee stage in the Lords. Over 100 amendments have so far been considered. The government have proposed several textual amendments which have all been agreed, and many other amendments were not moved. The majority of amendments have been debated but all have been withdrawn without being put to the vote. There have been over 30 hours of rhetoric, almost entirely hostile to the provisions of the bill, but the opponents have not laid a glove on the government.

Already many contentious matters have been raised. On Committee days 4 and 5 these included: young people; domestic violence; the definition of abuse; public funding for judicial review claims; those unlawfully deprived of their liberty; the victims of people trafficking; family reunion cases; debt issues; legal aid for employment matters and support for victims of unlawful practice; exceptional cases; and citizens advice bureaux, law centres and other not-for-profit advice and support agencies. Many amendments have been withdrawn on the vaguest government promise “to look again” at the particular matter before Report stage. But, as has been said before, government promises are like pie crusts – made to be broken.

Committee day 6 is listed for next Monday, 30 January. It is to be hoped that some of the teeth shown by their lordships in consideration of the Welfare Reform and the National Health Service bills can be brought to bear on the legal aid proposals. As it is, a great deal seems to be being left to Report stage.

The Lords continued their examination of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill on Monday, starting with Clause 8, which makes provisions about when civil legal services would be made available.

Amendment 21 was moved by Lord Beecham. He said that the bill sought to make legal aid provision a matter of exception rather than of course. Instead of listing only matters that would be eligible for legal aid, they exclude everything except those matters that are contained within the clause. The amendment would reverse the way that the Government are putting matters. It was withdrawn without being put to the vote.

Amendment 22, moved by Lord Faulks, concerned Clause 8(2), which gives the Lord Chancellor the power to modify Part 1 of Schedule 1 so as to omit services from the scope of legal aid and assistance. He said that the power would allow the Lord Chancellor to remove areas from the scope of legal aid without proper debate on the Floor of the House. After debate, he said: “I very much hope that, when this matter comes back on Report, those concerns can be reflected by the Minister. In that guise, I am happy to withdraw this amendment.” Amendments 23 to 27 were not moved.

Consideration moved on to Schedule 1: Civil legal services. Amendment 28 was moved by Lord Lloyd of Berwick, one of a group of amendments concerning clinical negligence proceedings and expert reports. All the amendments were directed towards the retention of legal aid in clinical negligence cases. Lord Wigley said: “Many people involved in cases arising from clinical negligence by a public authority are among the most destitute…Considering the inequality of arms that inevitably arises, having access to expert reports is vital. To put this debate into context, there are about 1 million adverse accidents in the NHS every year.” The debate – described as “very thoughtful” because so many of those who participated had experience, either legal or medical, of cases of this kind – looked at the best way to fund the expert report and resulted in the amendment’s withdrawal pending further figures from the government. Amendments 29 to 31 were not moved.

Baroness Doocey proposed amendment 32, relating to the ability of claimants, the majority of whom are disabled, to appeal against decisions on their entitlement to welfare benefits. She said that the Bill as it stands would remove social welfare cases from the scope of legal aid. “The need for such legal aid is best demonstrated by the fact that nearly 40 per cent of all appeals against work capability assessment decisions are upheld.” After a lively debate and a robust response from minister Lord McNally, Baroness Doocey said: “I really hope that the Minister will reflect again and consider bringing back some hope at Report stage. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.”

Baroness O’Loan proposed amendment 33, which sought to restore families with dependent children to the list of those eligible for legal aid and advice. She said: “Some 650,000 of the poorest people will be deprived of the access that they currently have through solicitors, CAB law centres and other advice centres…140,000 children will be affected by the proposed measures as legal aid is withdrawn from the adults who care for them, and…at least 6,000 children will be deprived of legal aid altogether.” In response to the debate, Lord McNally said: “I am not waving a white handkerchief and making specific concessions, but I take the point made by the noble and learned Baroness in closing that this has been an array of experience and expertise that we would do well to consider, and this we will do before we bring these matters back on Report. I ask the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, who started this debate, whether she will now withdraw her amendment.” She did.

More to come, with day four scheduled for Wednesday, 18 January.

alt="Creative Commons Licence [Some Rights Reserved]" src="http://creativecommons.org/images/public/somerights20.gif" />   © Copyright Stephen Richards and
licensed for reuse under this Creative Commons Licence.

As the legal aid, sentencing and punishment of offenders bill returns to the House of Lords at committee stage, an independent report from a leading university reveals how the legal aid changes will incur new costs for the taxpayer by simply shifting the burden onto other parts of the public purse.

The King’s College London report ‘Unintended Consequences: the cost of the Government’s Legal Aid Reforms’ was commissioned by the Law Society because of the Ministry of Justice’s reluctance to publish estimates of the knock-on costs of its proposed changes to legal aid policy. Published on Monday, the report shows that the government will produce less than half of the predicted savings through the proposed reforms to legal aid. In his report Dr Graham Cookson, from the Department of Management, analyses the intended changes to family, social welfare and clinical negligence law, which together are expected to produce savings of £240 million. He identified knock-on costs of £139 million per annum, and these unintended costs will largely be borne by other government departments, including a predicted £28 million being shouldered by the NHS each year. This means that the Government will only realise approximately 42 per cent of the predicted savings.

Dr Cookson said: “This research undermines the Government’s economic rationale for changing the scope of legal aid by casting doubt on its claims of realising savings to the public purse.” He concluded: “I echo the Justice Select Committee’s call for the Government to estimate the knock-on costs of these reforms before legislation is passed.”

Desmond Hudson, CEO of the Law Society, said: “The Ministry of Justice has defended swingeing cuts to Legal Aid in civil cases, which will deny justice to thousands, on its need to contribute savings to the Government’s deficit reduction programme. The Law Society accepts the need to achieve savings, but this report confirms that much of the Ministry of Justice’s claimed savings are being achieved at the expense of other parts of Government. This is kamikaze accounting and will do little to tackle the deficit while sacrificing access to justice. Should we be promoting our justice system internationally while denying access to ordinary citizens?”

At the same time, the London Advice Watch report was published. Sponsored by the Legal Action Group, it is based on an opinion poll of 1,600 Londoners who gave their views on advice services such as Citizens Advice Bureaux. It argues that London is unique in the diversity, range and numbers of law firms and advice centres which provide advice on civil legal problems. The city will be the largest loser in the country as London spends around a fifth of the budget for help with common civil legal problems. A cut of just under £10m in civil legal aid for London would see nearly 52,000 Londoners lose out on advice for problems with housing, welfare benefits, debt and employment law. It claims that the planned cuts will have a devastating impact on the specialist advice services which are an important part of the fabric of local communities in the city.

Commenting on the reports, Richard Hawkes, chief executive of disability charity Scope, said: “Legal advice is vital for disabled people if they fall foul of poor decision-making, red tape or administrative error, and this makes it crucial to the success of the government’s welfare reforms. For welfare reform to work disabled people have to get support to appeal decisions relating to their benefits, especially within a system where errors are commonplace. Cutting legal aid for welfare cases at a time when the Government is radically reforming the welfare system will leave disabled people at the mercy of a labyrinth of bureaucracy, and push many further towards poverty.”

The full text of the report ‘Unintended Consequences: the cost of the Government’s Legal Aid Reforms’ can be found at:

http://www.kcl.ac.uk/content/1/c6/08/81/08/UnintendedConsequencesFinalReport.pdf

Line-by-line scrutiny of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill continued on Tuesday in the House of Lords. Members continued where they left off before the Christmas recess when four amendments to clause 1, which defines the Lord Chancellor’s responsibilities, were debated and then withdrawn without being put to the vote.
Lord Beecham moved another amendment to clause 1 which called upon the Lord Chancellor to review the accessibility and quality of expert advice that is available for civil legal proceedings and ensure that this is maintained or improved. Concern was voiced over creating a two-tier system in which those with money are able to access expertise and those without money have difficulty. It was stressed that an expert is not a luxury, and that there are many technical issues on which a judge would be lost in coming to a proper, conclusive determination of a case without expert evidence to assist him. This amendment was withdrawn, and clause 1 was agreed.

Lord Bach moved a new clause calling for a pre-commencement impact assessment of the effect of the legal aid changes. After a full debate he said that the Government have clearly not done the work that should have been done before bringing in such controversial and fundamental legislation. “It is not too late for them to start doing it now, and I would encourage them to do so” he said. The amendment was withdrawn. So were two amendments to clause 2 – which deals with arrangements – proposed by Lord Beecham, and the clause was agreed, as was clause 3.

Clause 4, which covers the new post of Director of Legal Aid Casework, was the subject of an amendment moved by Lord Pannick. The amendment arises out of the transfer of responsibility for the allocation of legal aid from the independent Legal Services Commission to the Lord Chancellor’s Department. Decisions on legal aid in individual cases will be taken by a civil servant, who will be designated by the Lord Chancellor. Lord Pannick concluded: “Noble Lords prefer the drafting of Clause 4 to contain clear limits on the powers, in this context, of the Lord Chancellor and clear safeguards of the independence of the director. I hope that the Minister will be able to ask his officials to look again at the wording of Clause 4 so as to achieve these objectives, otherwise we will undoubtedly be returning to this matter on Report. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.” Clause 4 was agreed.

Lord Bach moved an amendment to insert a new clause on appeals following a decision made by the Director of Legal Casework in respect of eligibility for legal aid. He said: “The principle of being able to appeal against a decision made in this case by a civil servant who has been appointed by the Lord Chancellor is very important. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but we may come back to this on Report. If we are coming back to the earlier independence issue, we shall have to come back to this one as well.” Clauses 5, 6 and 7 were agreed.

Sixteen amendments were up for consideration on Tuesday. Eight were not even moved and the remaining eight were withdrawn without being put to the vote. It all had the feel of preliminary skirmishing with the main events still to come. The committee stage resumes on Monday, 16 January, when perhaps some of the red meat will be reached. The Lords may then exercise their muscle as they did with the government’s Welfare Reform bill on Wednesday.

The creation of the post of Chief Coroner for England and Wales was at the heart of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. The role was designed to introduce national leadership of the coroner service, considered a crucial step in tackling unacceptable delays, inconsistent standards of service delivery and lack of accountability.

Then, in a Commons written statement in October 2010, justice minister Jonathan Djanogly said: “After careful consideration, we have decided that in the current economic climate we cannot go ahead with plans to implement national leadership from a Chief Coroner….We have proposed that the abolition of the office of the Chief Coroner should be included in the Public Bodies Bill…and we are further considering the transfer of some of the Chief Coroner’s functions to suitable alternative bodies.” This was part of the coalition government’s plan to cull the number of Whitehall quangos. Peter Thornton QC, a senior circuit judge at the Central Criminal Court, had been appointed to the post of Chief Coroner but had not taken up his duties.

This announcement provoked widespread dismay. The Royal British Legion had welcomed the original legislation, believing that the establishment of a Chief Coroner’s Office was critical to improving the working of the inquest system in relation to military inquests. Chris Simpkins, Director General of the Legion, said: “We are concerned that the families of our fallen heroes will no longer have confidence that the circumstances of their loved ones’ deaths will be thoroughly investigated.” He added: “We believe this decision would be a deep betrayal of bereaved Service families.”

Now, in another government u-turn, the proposal to abolish the office has been dropped from the Public Bodies Bill currently progressing through Parliament. This is largely thanks to the strong opposition by the Lords. A year ago the Lords decisively rejected the Government’s plan to abolish the position of chief coroner by a majority of 112. Last Wednesday the bill was again before the Lords for consideration of amendments and minister of state Lord McNally bowed to the pressure by withdrawing the proposal to allow progress on the bill. He assured “Noble Lords that this appointment will go ahead with all due speed.” The concession was, as Lord Bach said: “At the 59th minute of the 11th hour. They deserve credit, but as the noble Lord, Lord McNally, will recognise from his position at the Ministry of Justice, there is an analogy with someone in the dock who does not deserve the credit that someone who makes an early admission of guilt deserves.”

Baroness Finlay, one of the main campaigners for the post, said: “I know that this means an enormous amount to those people who have been bereaved, who have had bad experiences, and who have campaigned tirelessly in spite of their overwhelming grief to try to ensure that others do not suffer.” Baroness Fookes, president of the War Widows Association of Great Britain, said: “Its members know above all others what it is like to suffer the loss of loved ones and to go through military inquests. Over the years, they told me in no uncertain terms how difficult it was if a coroner was inexperienced in dealing with inquests, the nature of the war scene and the military ethos. To put it bluntly, the Ministry of Defence could pull the wool over the eyes of coroners not experienced in wartime matters.”

Outside the debate, Juliet Lyon, director of the Prison Reform Trust, said: “Saving the office of the chief coroner…can improve standards and reduce unacceptably long delays for all bereaved families including those waiting for years to know how and why a loved one died in custody whilst in the care of the state.”

One in five women and one in ten men suffer from the obsessive attention of a stalker at some point in their life. British Crime Survey figures show that up to five million people experience stalking or harassment every year, but only around 8,000 people are convicted of harassment-related offences each year.

According to the national charity Protection Against Stalking, “Stalking and harassment is life changing. It causes intimidation, loss of jobs and relationships, the victim to move home, fear and sometimes death to the victim. The behavioural characteristics of the stalker are easily recognised but yet practitioners in the Criminal Justice System time and time again have failed to identify, assess and manage the risk due to a lack of understanding and inadequate training.” Laura Richards, a psychologist with Protection Against Stalking, said: “Victims are rarely taken seriously and most of the time they are told that the police cannot do anything and ‘their hands are tied by the law’. Too often we hear that perpetrators have rights, while victims only have codes and charters.”

The ‘Call to End Violence Against Women and Girls – Action Plan’ was published earlier this year. Key actions from the plan include making data on regional levels of violence against women – including domestic abuse, sexual assault and stalking – more accessible to ensure resources are targeted to where they are most needed. A new national stalking group was promised to support the work of the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Crown Prosecution Service in improving the police response to stalking.

Now it looks as if stalking could become a new criminal offence following an online consultation announced on Monday. Views are sought on how best to tackle this crime and provide protection for victims, on whether specific offences of ‘stalking’ and ‘cyber stalking’ should be added to existing harassment laws, and what training and guidance is needed for police and prosecutors. Home Secretary Theresa May said: “I am determined to ensure that victims of stalking have the protection and support they need. We are particularly interested in hearing from those with direct experience – victims, police and the courts.”

Speaking in Manchester, at the first of four regional events taking place on stalking, the minister for equalities and criminal information, Lynne Featherstone, said: “Stalking is an issue which profoundly affects many lives, often in devastating ways…There are campaigners and police I have talked to who believe the actual words of ‘stalking’ and ‘cyber stalking’ need to be in the act.” She promised that the Government would give more help to victims of stalking following the consultation. “It is quite clear that they are being let down but this government’s ambition is nothing less than ending violence against women and girls,” she said.

Closing date for contributions to the consultation is 5 February 2012. Provision for online submissions can be found at:

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/about-us/consultations/stalking-consultation/

Clause 12 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill provides that advice in the police station in future could be subject to a means test. This would drive a coach and horses through the universal right to representation by a solicitor at a police station, enshrined in section 58(1) Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, in response to a series of serious miscarriages of justice in the 1970s and 80s involving unrepresented defendants.

During the debate on the second reading of the bill Ken Clarke was asked to consult carefully about the practical implementation of proposals to limit legal aid for advice and assistance in police stations. The justice secretary said: “We will consider the issue and no doubt my hon. Friend or others will return to it in Committee. I realise that there has been some concern.” It was indeed raised again in Committee, when justice minister Jonathan Djanogly admitted: “The practicalities are the greatest stumbling block, and the costs could be significant.”

But when the bill returned to the Commons at Report stage last week clause 12 was unamended, and, on Wednesday, means testing was the subject of considerable debate. Mike Crockart (Lib Dem, Edinburgh West), drawing on his experience as a serving police officer, stressed that the presence of a lawyer not only protects defendants from police abuse but protects the police from false allegations by defendants. He asked: “Who will ask what someone’s earnings are, or how much their mortgage is? Those questions will have to be asked in extremely stressful situations. Will the Minister explain how the proposals will work without the whole process becoming extremely unwieldy?” Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Dwyfor Meirionydd), said: “As anyone who has practised criminal law will know, the first couple of hours in custody can be crucial…Most people, when facing a police interview, particularly for the first time, are unable to think clearly and may not be cognisant of their best interests.”

Karl Turner (Lab, Hull), who has practised criminal law as a solicitor for many years, and whose wife is a qualified criminal duty solicitor, said: “I firmly believe that everybody should be entitled to free and independent legal advice while in a police station. It is a fundamental right in a democratic society, and to remove it would be a huge mistake.” Jenny Chapman (Lab, Darlington), said that applying means testing in the police station would inevitably introduce delay in the process and prevent the police from proceeding as quickly as they would wish. “Clients who are in police custody will not have access to documents with which to verify their entitlements, and clients who do not pass the means test are in no position to instruct the solicitor of their choice on a private basis.”

Justice minister Djanogly was at the Despatch Box for the legal aid section of the bill, though at the very beginning of the debate he had to make a statement about his insurance interests. In response to the means testing debate he said: “Having heard what has been said and having considered the issue, I appreciate that there are many deeply held concerns across the House and more widely on both the principle and the practicality of means-testing for advice and assistance for those in police custody and in relation to the concept of contingent legislation…I can confirm that we will, therefore, carefully review our approach to these clause issues as the Bill goes through its stages in another place.”

Seem to have heard that before.

Dangerous drivers who seriously injure others could spend longer in jail thanks to a new criminal offence.

For the vast majority of dangerous driving cases the maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment provides the courts with sufficient and proportionate powers to punish offenders. The new offence of ‘causing serious injury by dangerous driving’ will carry a maximum sentence of five years in prison and allow the courts to impose tougher punishments on dangerous drivers.

Announcing the new offence, justice secretary Kenneth Clarke said: “Dangerous driving can destroy lives and have a devastating effect on victims and their families and friends. We have listened to the victims of dangerous drivers, their families, MPs, judges and road safety groups and their experiences have directly informed these changes. Making our roads safer is a priority – five people died on our roads each day last year, so we need to do everything we can to further improve safety.”

Road safety minister Mike Penning said: “The vast majority of motorists are safe and responsible but the wilfully reckless minority who put lives in danger must face serious penalties. We are taking action to help the police tackle drink and drug driving, as well as to crack down on uninsured and dangerous drivers, and this new offence will mean the courts can properly punish those who inflict serious injuries.” The change was welcomed by Andrew Howard, Head of Road Safety at the AA, who said: “These law changes should make sentences more proportionate to the devastation dangerous driving causes and should also deter people from driving badly.”

The changes will be taken forward as part of the Government’s Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, which is rapidly becoming a grab bag of last minute proposals. The bill comes before the House of Commons again this week at Report stage. So far the bill, including plans to cut legal aid and curb payouts, which could benefit the insurance industry to the tune of £1bn a year, has been piloted through the Commons by justice minister Jonathan Djanogly. Djanogly has investments worth at least £250,000 in companies with insurance arms. His brother in law, in whose companies Djanogly’s children were shareholders, also stands to gain. Labour’s justice spokesman Andy Slaughter recently wrote to cabinet secretary Gus O’Donnell calling for an investigation into Djanogly. Slaughter pointed to conflict of interest claims, given that the minister had neither resigned nor removed himself from discussions from which he could personally profit.

The outcome was that Djanogly has been stripped of his responsibility to regulate firms that ‘ambulance chase’ the public. According to the ‘Guardian’, in reply to Slaughter, O’Donnell said that while there is “no suggestion of any impropriety in relation” to Djanogly’s brother-in-law’s firms that “for the avoidance of doubt decisions about the regulation of individual (claims management companies) should henceforth be handled by another minister.”

The justice secretary will now be in charge of the industry, but this still leaves Djanogly in charge of legal aid and civil litigation, which means he will be able to identify growth areas for claims management companies. It will be interesting to see what role he plays in the Commons this week.

Word has it that there have been some fierce knock’em down and drag’em out battles in cabinet between Theresa May and Kenneth Clarke on the subject of mandatory prison sentences. If that is the case the home secretary has triumphed. David Cameron has intervened and decided.

Clarke made clear his personal opposition to the use of mandatory sentences at a hearing of the Commons home affairs committee on Tuesday. His preference is to give judges unfettered discretion to set sentences based on the facts of the cases for nearly all crimes except murder. He also made clear his view that a minimum mandatory sentence for juveniles under 18 was not part of the traditions of the British criminal justice system. But on Wednesday he announced a new sentencing regime, which includes:

• A mandatory life sentence for anyone convicted of a second very serious sexual or violent crime. This will mean that mandatory life sentences can be given for crimes other than murder
• Extending the category of the most serious sexual and violent offences.
• The Extended Determinate Sentence (EDS) – all dangerous criminals convicted of serious sexual and violent crimes will be imprisoned for at least two thirds of their sentence.
• Criminals who complete an EDS must then serve extended licence periods.
• Mandatory custodial sentence for aggravated knife possession by 16 and 17 years olds.
• Replacement of the much-criticised indeterminate sentence for public protection (IPP).

The new regime will be debated in the House of Commons next week as an addition to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill. It is likely to increase the already record 87,000 prison population in England and Wales, putting a serious question mark over hopes of stabilising the jail population.

Already there has been opposition to the new regime. John Bache, the chairman of the Magistrates Association youth courts committee, said that while he agreed that removing knives from the streets was of paramount importance, the Magistrates Association was against mandatory sentences. Frances Crooke, chief executive of the Howard League for Penal Reform, said: “We have nearly 12,000 life sentence prisoners – that’s more than Russia, Poland, German and France all added together. We are using the mandatory life sentence and discretionary life sentences like confetti.” Juliet Lyon, director of the Prison Reform Trust, said: “Subject to good sentencing guidelines, what’s wrong with allowing the courts to make sure that the sentence fits the crime?”

The justice secretary also announced additional measures “to better protect people from intruders, dangerous criminals and excessive no-win no-fee legal costs.” The measures include:

• Making squatting in residential buildings a criminal offence.
• Strengthening people’s rights to use force to defend themselves from intruders in their own homes.
• Giving magistrates power to hand down bigger fines.
• Banning referral fees that allow middle-men to profit from encouraging others to make unnecessary compensation claims.

These measures will also be debated as an addition to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill.

As always with these events, I arrive with my exhibitors head on and leave with my former practitioner’s one thinking long and hard on all that I have heard. Let me say from the top of this piece that I am a great believer in the UK legal profession and the work it does for its clients albeit that I am baffled by its almost wilful denial of the challenges in front of it. Someone yesterday likened it to watching a man shoot himself in both feet with one bullet.

And there are good reasons as to why the profession is in this frame of mind. Undoubtedly it is vexed and tried beyond belief by the constant pace of change and the raft of professional bodies, politicians and experts telling lawyers how it is and what they must do about it. Equally, not everyone understands why things need to change so radically. Most of all it is that word change. Few people are predisposed to enjoying too much change and lawyers are naturally conservative on the subject.

I heard both John Wotton and Charles Plant remind their audience about market forces in an almost plaintive tone of voice. In stark words: “You cannot override market forces …. We cannot secure your future for you, you must secure your own future.”
And they are so right, which makes it even worse for those who have to listen and adapt. Imagine being told that what is coming may well dilute our current notion of what a law firm is when you have spent half your career in the current construct and are hoping it will see you out and contribute to your retirement. It leaves that horrible feeling at the back of your mind that things won’t work out the way you imagined or indeed were promised and that isn’t a good thing.

The over-riding feeling within the profession is that such changes are a no-go for high street firms and that we are all talking to the wrong firms when we discuss ABS and everything else.

The truth is that we aren’t. We are talking to the right firms because each one of you is exactly the kind of firm that has the experience and ability to give clients both what they want and what they need. Countless management gurus will charge you a pretty sum to tell you that you cannot stop change, it’s happening anyway and you will make life a lot easier for yourself if you go with it and work out how to make it pay for you. Resistance is ultimately futile as it takes more energy to maintain a position that refuses to yield in the face of change and this stance will ultimately yield little profitable return.

So maybe it’s time to think about a plan of action that is more baby steps than grand panic or total objection?

photo courtesy of Mike Quinn’s Profile on geograph.or.uk