Taxi Driver Online

In my opinion the Law Commission has declared war on the hackney and small private hire companies. so I have decided as a consumer not to use solicitors any more for any accident or personal injury claims.... I will simply contact the insurance companies myself, and I will be contacting every National Association and union and recommending that they advise their members to do the same. this is one turkey that isn't voting for Christmas... I'll also be telling the solicitors why they're not getting my work
ps.. have you ever noticed that you need a barrister to speak for you in court.... now that's something we should all get together on to get changed.. free market

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!

I think you're maybe confusing the Law Commission with the Law Society again, Mr T

Anyway, you can still rely on Joanna Connolly though?

Is she still chairperson of the NTTG? Can't recall you mentioning her name in that thread where you were complaining about the NTTG.

No dusty... I am not confusing anything.... hackney, private hire trade and their family's/ Unions.... put a obscene amount of money into solicitors through personal injury claims.. stop that... and they will soon start screaming.... the message will go back up the pipe.... and as for Jo, she's very well, and not in the NTTG. but she keeps her eyes open and her ears to the ground....... Hi Jo..

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

Deregulating the law profession


A conference on the future of the bar in England and Wales needs to ensure that those working in law can keep their independence

Barristers' leaders are holding a major symposium on the future of the bar in England and Wales. Photograph: Doug Menuez/Getty Images

Lawyers are not alone in wondering whether they'll keep their jobs when the cuts begin to bite. But, unlike most professionals, they have little idea what state their profession will be in by the time of the next general election in 2015.

Tonight barristers' leaders are holding a major symposium on the future of the bar in England and Wales. The chairman of the bar council, Nicholas Green QC, will report back on changes the bar has made to meet the new regulatory requirements imposed by Labour.

"Our task is to modernise the bar and to ensure that it emerges from the recession all the stronger," Green is expected to say. "I have no doubt that we can do this."

His counterpart at the Law Society, the solicitors' leader Robert Heslett, fears that the planned reforms will deprive the legal profession of the independence that has given it a "sky-high reputation across the world".

This legal equivalent of the deregulation big bang is popularly known as "Tesco law", although there is no suggestion that the supermarket chain is planning to stock up on lawyers and sell legal services cheap.

As things now stand, solicitors and barristers will be allowed to work in so-called alternative business structures from October 2011, accepting outside investment and even operating under external ownership or as public limited companies. There has been much speculation on whether the coalition government will slow down the rush towards deregulation. No doubt that depends on whether it would save money.

Although two main professional bodies are "approved regulators" under the Legal Services Act 2007, they were required to set up their own regulatory bodies – the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) and the Bar Standards Board (BSB). It was not clear how independent the SRA and the BSB were meant to be.

In a major speech last month, Heslett admitted that the Law Society had gone "the wrong way in the early years" by implementing an "incredibly destructive process of absolute separation" between its representative and regulatory roles – something that was not required by the legislation. "An artificial separation led to huge misunderstanding on both sides which bred mistrust and threatened the whole effectiveness of regulation," he said.

The SRA has now moved away from a prescriptive set of rules to one meant to give solicitors some freedom in the way they meet statutory requirements of independence and integrity. This is a system of "outcomes-focused regulation", under which solicitors will be given a list of desired outcomes with guidance on what they mean.

But it's a huge change, and one that Heslett says should not be introduced in little more than a year from now. He is also worried that the Legal Services Board, set up by Labour as an overarching super-regulator, is too close to government and might even "seize control of regulation for itself".

In the beginning, there were also tensions between the Bar Council and its regulatory arm. But now that the BSB is chaired by Baroness Deech, an academic lawyer with decades of experience in running diverse public bodies, there seems to be much greater respect on both sides. Although the BSB operates under delegated authority from the bar council, the representative arm of the profession regards its regulator as genuinely independent.

Deech, too, will present some very clear ideas tonight on how the bar must modernise in order to survive as a discrete profession in the changing legal landscape. Like Green, she is convinced that an independent referral bar is essential to the rule of law.

This is not just the restructuring of a much-maligned profession; it's a reform that affects us all.

Joshua Rozenberg is a freelance legal writer, commentator and broadcaster

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2010/jun/ ... ar-council

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

Solicitors and barristers are much-maligned?

HTF are they kidding!!!

Taxi and private hire drivers yes, but not that bunch of legalised robbers.

_________________
Kind regards,

Brummie Cabbie.

Type a message, post your news,
Disagree with other members' views;
But please, do have some decorum,
When debating on the TDO Forum.

Consumers warned over deregulation of legal services

Legal ombudsman says consumers must take greater care when choosing a legal practitioner following market reforms in October



Adam Sampson says the ombudsman has received 40,000 complaints in six months.

The legal ombudsman has warned that consumers will need to take even greater care checking the regulatory status of firms offering legal services when the legal world experiences its equivalent of the big bang this autumn.

Chief ombudsman Adam Sampson says his team has not been able to deal with many of the complaints brought to the service because consumers have unknowingly bought services from people who are not qualified as solicitors. He believes that problems arising from this lack of understanding are likely to increase once new providers, including supermarkets and banks, enter the market in October.

Some services such as conveyancing, will writing, divorce, and no win, no fee can already be conducted by people who are not qualified lawyers, provided the case does not become contentious. But while their services are often cheaper, it means the client has no redress to the professional bodies responsible for regulating solicitors or the ombudsman if things go wrong.

And Sampson believes even more people will become confused about what they are buying and from whom from 6 October when reformation of the legal sector means non-law businesses or alternative business structures (ABS) can move into legal services. Although companies such as the Co-op and Halifax, as ABSs, will provide regulated legal services, their entrance to the market could further blur the distinction between regulated and non-regulated activities still further.

Sampson cites the example of a man who approached a high street solicitor about writing his will. The solicitor introduced him to someone he believed to be a direct colleague who drew up the will. But when the will turned out to be deficient and he complained to the solicitor's firm, he was told the will writer was not a solicitor or part of the solicitor's firm, but actually working for a subsidiary providing non-regulated services.

"In that case we decided there was sufficient grounds to take the complaint on because the will writing firm was owned by the solicitor concerned," Sampson said. "But we've seen lots of cases where people have had deficient wills where we haven't been able to help. This problem will only increase as the legal services market reforms, and internet-based provision and commoditisation of legal services increases."

Since it was established six months ago the legal ombudsman has received about 40,000 phone calls, letters and emails, but it has only taken on about 4,000 as complaints and has completed almost 1,500 cases.

Other complaints concern the length of time taken to complete a legal service and the total cost. "This is usually due to a failure on the part of the lawyer and the customer to form a joint view of expections," Sampson said. He recommends that clients should establish right at the very beginning what it is the lawyer is going to do for them, a timescale, and how much they are going to charge, although this will in most cases be an estimate.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2011/ap ... l-services

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

Although companies such as the Co-op and Halifax, as ABSs, will provide regulated legal services, their entrance to the market could further blur the distinction between regulated and non-regulated activities still further.


I wonder if Tesco,Sainsburys and Asda are aware of this, should ruffle feather's when they are and if they choose to enter into it.

Wow that's a lot of communications, but, why am I not surprised. I suppose the more expensive something costs the more likely someone is to complain and lets face it legal fees are not cheap. Perhaps having a transport 'ombudsman' for the taxis/ph where firms pay on the size of their operation towards the funding of enforcement would be a step forward. If councils have issues with enforcement they request the services of the 'ombudsman' who will send out an enforcement team to the respective area. Just a thought

_________________
Note to self: Just because it pops into my head does NOT mean it should come out of my mouth!!

Why do we need barristers. why can't we simply go into court and put our own case across.. why do we need to employ these people.... shouldn't we'd be going for change... they are a needless expense...... and the very costly expense at that.......

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!

We don't need barristers generally it is the solicitors that need the barristers when things get complicated and they need advice. Also only barristers have a right of audience in the higher courts. I would suggest it's a job for the boys type of thing Having said that sometimes it is best to protect people from themselves (I know it's not the first time I've said it). There are courts where you can represent yourself if you so wish but you really do need to know what you're doing and whilst there are people more than capable of doing this there are many more that think they are. The thing I find most strange is that in almost all matters the general public cannot instruct a barrister

_________________
Note to self: Just because it pops into my head does NOT mean it should come out of my mouth!!

It is relatively easy to deal with an assurance company regarding the repair of your vehicle and a simple whiplash:.... no need for solicitors.... no need to cost the insurance company thousands of pounds on top, would probably go towards reducing premiums. But if a person was seriously injured than use a good solicitor( that is if they can find one )................. and as for barristers. if a person wishes to defend himself, then he should be able to ....there could well be an argument to change the court system.... more courts and judges... less barristers.....it would probably save millions.... one judge dealing with say five cases a day..... Small cases..... = xxxx....... five barristers =xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!

Because people need to know when they get to court they have a good chance of success.

A litigant in person is not a good place to be.

Be in no-doubt any bravado one has disappears as you enter the court.

_________________
IDFIMH

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

Interesting comments. Those that have will have more and those that don't will work longer and harder, quite the norm for a free market society

_________________
Note to self: Just because it pops into my head does NOT mean it should come out of my mouth!!