Coal Health...

OK so this is not housing law, it doesn't matter since it's important for the legal profession in general I suppose.

Today, as I begin my journey back into the blogging world (instead of doing my chargeable work this evening), I found out that Raleys [-the Yorkshire law firm that made millions from miners compensation claims] has decided to set up this www.cmhrc.co.uk website.

Now the history of the coal mines is important, but when you line up the millions that each equity partner made at Raleys from those miners, and the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal hearing to be held in January 09, it seems slightly odd no? I am sure that the SDT at the 20 day hearing will be quick to absolve them of any guilt when they mention the website!!

The firm rejects findings by the Legal Complaints Service that it provided inadequate professional service in the handling of miners’ compensation claims under the state-funded scheme for victims of respiratory disease and vibration white finger.

And senior partner Ian Firth's justification for the finding of IPS by the LCS is that it comes from a small minority of clients...lawyers aren't money grabbers - really...

The Legal Complaints Service - Publishing solicitors' complaints records

In just a month's time the LCS is supposedly publishing the report of the consultation they undertook at the beginning of the year as to the online publishing of solicitors' complaints records.

Good or bad?

Solicitors seem to not be happy about this, is that a fair comment? Particularly the Law Society and it's hierarchy - expressed through the Gazette. For example an article on the credit crunch [http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/general/view=newsarticle.law?GAZETTENEWSID=407897] quickly turns into a straw poll on the consultation and it can be inferred that the publishing should not go ahead.

.

Personally, professionally and with a modicum of realism, the consultation will probably conclude that the information will be published online. The consultation document itself was worded to meet those ends, the LCS board want this to happen and the MoJ also want a degree of transparency to the profession as the LCS prepares for the transition to the Office of Legal Complaints under the Legal Services Act. For the vast majority of solicitors the online database will have no impact at all. A search will come back with no results - since it I believe the LCS still want to only publish complaints that have been upheld. Much in the same was as the Solicitors Regulation Authority are already publishing the decisions of the SDT online, in a searchable database form.

.

This last managed to slip in under the radar, and not many really knew about it at the time. The Law Society made no moves to discredit the decision by SRA but for some reason the same is not true of the LCS's choice.

.

When you consider that the LCS receives some 20,000 complaints each year, and rising, (granted not all are upheld or valid) but the publishing of the most serious will surely create a transparent environment for the profession to prosper in. Only those solicitors who have something to hide will suffer, and do we really want these individuals in our profession? I refer you to the 3 Karims of Karim Solicitors who the SDT recently struck off for dishonest use of clients' money [see http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2008/06/on-the-naughty-step-3/ for more on the events].

.

Andrew Holroyd suggested a few months ago to bring back an oath for solicitors to strengthen the image of the profession. I think we can all agree that whilst that may be awfully charming, clients are not going to place too much value on that. Call me cynical but the value of any oath has become significantly nondescript, it doesn't mean much too some nowadays.

.

To anyone who might read this, can I say this in conclusion, what is better?

(i) being overshadowed by the misdemeanours of a few others in the profession?, or

(ii) giving the public a means to identifying the true professionals in our profession - restoring the trust in some way?

.

Finally could I just refer you to that Law Gazette article again and the last line in reference to the consultation:-

.

"John Kunzler, claims legal manager at Travelers, said: ‘There were about six or seven consultations out at the time. When are busy lawyers meant to answer all of them?’"

.

Is that meant to be an excuse? Prioritise prioritise prioritise...after all, I don't think the Bar will mind not having a response to the court dress consultation that was out at the time.