Two
further concessions on the Legal Aid bill was announced by the government
as February ended. Criticism of the definition of domestic violence in relation
to legal aid has instigated a rethink. The government is to bring their
definition in line with the Association of
Chief Police Officers (ACPO) definition. A Ministry of Justice spokesman
defined the amendment to the legal aid bill as a measure that would put it ‘beyond
doubt that those who have suffered physical, psychological or financial
domestic abuse would continue to receive legal aid to help them to resolve any
separation disputes over property or child contact’. On medical negligence it
would be retained in ‘obstetrics cases which result in severe disability’.
A ‘declaration
of intent’ by the Bar
Standards Board (BSB) ushered in the launch of its final scheme for
regulating advocacy focused alternative business structures (ABS). The board
approved a lengthy consultation, which includes details of the entity
regulation plans, a new handbook introducing changes to the barristers’ code of
conduct, and proposals to allow the conduct of litigation. Subject to meeting ‘outcomes-focused
provisions’, barristers would be permitted to share premises or practise in association
with non-lawyers, with only an obligation to notify the BSB.
Europa Partners, an investment
advisory firm has revealed that six
of the biggest law firms in UK could be included in the FTSE100 if they had
publicly traded. The rankings are as follows:
1. Allen
& Overy: £2.6 billion ($4.2 billion)
2. Freshfields: £2.5 billion ($4 billion)
3. Linklaters: £2.3 billion
($3.7 billion)
4. Hogan Lovells: £2.2 billion ($3.4
billion)
5. Clifford Chance: £2.2 billion
($3.4 billion)
6. DLA Piper: £2.2 billion ($3.4 billion)
7. Slaughter & May: £990 million
($1.5 billion)
8. Herbert Smith: £760 million ($1.2
billion)
9. Ashurst:
£560 million ($885 million) Merged with
Blake Dawson, Australia on 1st
March
10. Eversheds: £450 million ($711 million)
The Financial
Times reported that the valuation of the firms are ‘calculated by deducting
costs from a firm’s reported revenue to get notional profit before tax, from
which partner compensation is then subtracted. Corporate tax is then applied to
get profit after tax. Europa then used a range between 12 and 15 of multiples
of earnings that law firms would theoretically trade at, based on ranges seen
at public professional services firms’.
As the appointment
of 88 new Queen’s Counsels was announced, the Law
Society Gazette rued over the lack of solicitors among the successful
applicants. Since 2008, only six solicitors have been made QC. Dame Joan Higgins,
chair
of the QC selection panel, has voiced her concern over the considerable
hesitancy on the part of solicitor advocates to apply for silk, even where they
may be qualified to do so. Of the successful applicants, 23 were women and 6 of
the new silks are from an ethnic minority. One employed advocate has also been
appointed.
On the eve of this
April’s Council of Europe Summit in Brighton, the government is calling for the
European Convention on
Human Rights to be substantially rewritten so national courts could wield
greater influence. The proposal is to prevent cases reaching the European court
if the question is substantially identical to one that a national court has
already considered. The UK
is seeking an amendment to the human rights convention to enshrine what the
Strasbourg court refers to as the margin of appreciation, allowing states a
level of discretion in applying the convention.
The phone-hacking
scandal that led to the collapse of ‘News of the World’ has claimed perhaps the
highest profile resignation. James Murdoch, has stepped
down as the executive chairman of News International, owners of the collapsed
newspaper. He would however, remain as deputy chief operating officer of parent
group News Corporation, run by his father Rupert. A frequent commentator on
media practices, Max Mosley, the former chief executive of Formula 1’s governing
body and himself the subject of a ‘News of the World’ allegation, wrote
in CNN about the need to completely overhaul the Press Complaints
Commission (PCC). Mosley proposes ‘two entirely separate bodies, one to make
the rules, the other to enforce them. The rule-making body could even emerge
from the existing PCC which already has quite a good, but un-enforced code’.
The Royal
College of Midwives has welcomed a landmark judgement in an employment tribunal
against an NHS trust. Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS
Foundation Trust was ruled to have unlawfully deducted pay. The tribunal
unanimously found that the trust was attempting to link sickness to the
withholding of incremental progression. It has now been ordered to pay the
claimants any money that they have lost out on due to this. Jon Skewes, RCM
director of employment relations, said that ‘the test case sends a stark legal
warning to the NHS and the government that they cannot take midwives for
granted and ride roughshod and trample on the employment contracts and
conditions of our members’.
In a separate case
involving midwives, in Scotland, two Catholic
midwives have lost a legal bid challenging a health board's decision that
they were not entitled to refuse to delegate, supervise or support staff
involved in abortion procedures. Mary Doogan and Concepta Wood argued that as conscientious
objectors, they were entitled to refuse to delegate, supervise and support
staff taking part in abortions or providing care to patients during the
process. Being required to supervise staff involved in abortions is a violation
of their human rights and they took their case against NHS Greater Glasgow and
Clyde to the Court of Session in Edinburgh. In a response to the ruling, Neil
Addison, Catholic barrister and Director
of the Thomas More Legal Centre, stated that the ‘case is yet another
example of the way in which the UK Courts are interpreting s9 of the European
Convention on Human Rights (Freedom of Religion) in the most limited and
restrictive way possible’.
The debate on
abortion is not new. Nor is there any likelihood of it to disappear. Citing the
recent online death threats issued by anti-abortionists to two academics, Julian
Savulescu, editor of the Journal of Medical
Ethics, has stated that the intimidation
endangered free speech. The academics, Alberto Giubilini from the
University of Milan and Monash University in Melbourne and Francesca Minerva
from the University of Melbourne and Oxford University, argued in the journal
that, as "potential persons", newborn babies, like foetuses, do not
have the same moral status as "actual persons".
On the week when a
Sunderland football
fan was sentenced over racist tweets about rival team Newcastle United, a
black professional footballer, Mark McCammon became the first
to sue his former employers Gillingham FC. McCammon’s claim centres on less
favourable treatment of black players by the club in taking different stances
over punishments handed out for missing training, medical treatment for
injuries and pay cuts after relegation from League One. The claims would be
heard at Ashford employment tribunal in Kent later this year. The club rejects the
allegation and refused to comment any further until the tribunal hearing
has taken place.
Sunday Law Review’s
two recommended reading articles from this week’s publications are by the
outgoing Archbishop of Canterbury Dr. Rowan Williams on ‘Human Rights and
Religious Faith’, published in ABC
Religion and Ethics, and my very own guest blog published in DietJustice
entitled, ‘My view on the London 'riots'. Rowan Williams’ excellent article is
a reminder of responsibility on both the secular and the religious factions
working on human rights issues, to acknowledge the importance of the final
goal. The DietJustice article on last August’s London Riots analyses the philosophical
undertones of political comments that attempted to explain the riots.
As ever, I thank
the legal representatives, journalists, web editors and publications I have
cited, and linked, for allowing me to compose this week’s Sunday Law Review.
Readers are welcome to highlight any critical omissions, offer factual
corrections or discuss the issues raised in my review.
© TTR
