23 June 2014


www.lawgazette.co.uk Level the playing field


19 Bell Yard, London WC2A 2JR DX: Gazette LDE100 www.lawgazette.co.uk www.lawgazettejobs.co.uk Law Society telephone 020 7242 1222 firstname.surname@lawsociety.org.uk


EDITORIAL Editor-in-chief Paul Rogerson 020 7841 5551 News editor Michael Cross 020 7841 5546 Features editor Eduardo Reyes 020 7841 5550 Reporters Catherine Baksi 020 7841 5547 John Hyde 020 7841 5571 Kathleen Hall 020 7841 5549 Staff writer Jonathan Rayner 020 7841 5548 Editorial publishing manager Kirsty Wright 020 7316 5522 Web content editor John Maher 020 7841 5597 Sub-editors Nick Goodman, Ryan Southwell, Monidipa Fouzder


ADVERTISING gazette-advertising@lawsociety.org.uk gazette-jobsadvertising@lawsociety.org.uk Display manager Lois Elam 020 7841 5541 Account manager Alison Sharpin James 020 7841 5542 Sales executive Vera Bannerman 020 7841 5494 Sales development Ian Sinclair 020 7841 5543 Services and data sales Lois Elam 020 7841 5541 Recruitment manager Jeannie Bushell 020 7841 5422 Recruitment Dawn Hare 020 7841 5453 Bunmi Ipaye 020 7841 5533 Leanne Williams 020 7841 5426 Danny Frondigoun 020 7320 5860 Charities David Roberts 020 7841 5423


PRODUCTION production@lawsociety.org.uk Manager Ian Clark 020 7841 5560 Senior executive Graham Matthews 020 7841 5561 Executive Sarah Cotterrill 020 7841 5421 Web Gwinyai Mparutsa 020 7841 5425


SUBSCRIPTIONS gazette-subscriptions@lawsociety.org.uk Supervisor Jenny Mould 020 7841 5523 Executive Sue Scarlett 020 7841 5524


HEAD OF GAZETTE PUBLISHING Libby Child


©2014 The Law Society. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying and recording, without the written permission of the publishers. Written permission must be obtained before any part of this publication is stored in a retrieval system. Registered at the Post Office as a newspaper, published by the Council of the Law Society, 113 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1PL. Printed by Wyndeham Roche Ltd, ISSN 0262 145.


Volume number 111/22


Print: Audited circulation 118,112 (July 2012-June 2013)


Online: Unique browsers 312,126 Page impressions 1,964,699 (Jan 2014)


WRITE TO US All letters (maximum 350 words) must include a full postal address and be sent to: Editor in Chief, Law Society Gazette, 19 Bell Yard, London WC2A 2JR LDE 100 or paul. rogerson@ lawsociety. org.uk


Legal aid changes are denying access to justice for parents seeking contact with children. Parties are not on an equal footing


» I agree wholeheartedly with the concerns expressed by Gerald Cumming (letters, 2 June). I had a client who had to pursue contact through the court. A


couple of years after separation and a clear police check by Cafcass, his ex-partner persuaded the police to make a referral for domestic violence and applied for legal aid on the back of this. The ‘ex’ was not agreeable to any interim contact and, with no corroborating evidence whatsoever, made a number of serious and distasteful allegations against my client, who had to fund the action privately. On the day of the final hearing, she withdrew her allegations and an


order was made by consent; it might be surmised that the referral and allegations were put forward to justify legal aid funding, so that the ex did not herself have to incur any expense. I have another matter: my last remaining legal aid case. The pro- ceedings have been going on for nearly two years. The ex has always opposed contact and indeed has admitted as much in the last state- ment served. The court has attached a penal notice to the latest order for indirect contact and the ex’s barrister informally told ours that we would probably end up having to make an application, because their client had no intention of making the child available for contact. My client is unemployed and could not afford to pay privately. They


do not drive and so have to rely upon the generosity of friends to get to court, which is in the Midlands. Moreover, the client is dyslexic. With the best will in the world, if they did not have legal aid they would have little chance of representing themselves and securing a contact order. The playing field is lopsided. The overriding objective of ensuring the parties are on an equal footing is not being met.


Martin Curnow Paul Finn Solicitors, Bude, Cornwall


Lender protocol


» I have recently acted for a number of purchasers of properties from mortgagees in possession. They will often impose impossible dead- lines for exchange of contracts – sometimes a week or 10 days from receipt of contract documentation. The upshot is that searches cannot be made within the timescale, and the title cannot be properly inves- tigated, let alone a mortgage offer received. Clients become anxious about losing the property if exchange of contracts is not within the timescale. Is it not time that a protocol was adopted to force lenders to adopt a more reasonable timescale in repossession transactions?


Osian Roberts Guthrie Jones & Jones, Denbigh


Rules are rules


» Could someone please tell me why there is an outcry over the Mitchell costs rules? I am not a litigator, but surely the rules are the rules. Why shouldn’t litigators be held to abide by them like the rest of us? It is like real estate lawyers complaining that they should not be punished for failing to give a Landlord and Tenant Act notice on time; or football teams stealing extra yards on free kicks. Even the foot- ball authorities are insisting that the rules of the beautiful game are observed. At this World Cup, once a set-play is awarded, the referee will ‘spray’ around the ball, pace out 10 yards and draw a line, ensur- ing defenders keep their distance.


Christopher Digby-Bell London, W1


FEEDBACK 11


GAZETTE ONLINE Mitchell damage


» Dyson and Jackson will no doubt be in complete denial about the mess they have created, like the recent comments from Mr Anthony Blair... I suspect they will seek to blame us pesky solicitors for not ‘behaving responsibly’ and for the ‘unprofessional’ use of their wretched rules/decisions. â tinyurl.com/nxqvppg


‘Ban lawyer


tax advice’ » Parliament rushes through tax changes as lazy attempts


to influence the nation’s priorities, without properly considering the long-term implications. What is tolerated one day is tabloid-fodder the next, and parliament flips and flops so as to avoid taking responsibility for the mess. â tinyurl.com/lmfm2dj


Big fines ‘criminalise’


motorists » The cynic in me mutters that this is a ploy purely aimed


at raising more money. Of course, no government would ever stoop so low, be so utterly devoid of moral fibre, so over- come by cynical venality 800 years after Magna Carta, as to distort and manipulate basic principles of justice into a cash cow.


â tinyurl.com/mmk9nvj Land charges


takeover » It’s not so much the proposal I dislike – I can see advantages


to the Registry taking over LLC and being able to provide them quickly and in a univer- sal format for a fixed fee – it’s the reasoning and execution. Farce of a consultation, and the sole purpose being to fatten up HMLR for a privatisation that has no reason to happen, since they make a profit. â tinyurl.com/n9b66rx


LETTERS


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36