Around half of the legislation on the site at present is up to date.  Laws that have been changed but not updated are marked to that effect on the site.

Research by consultants Pearn Kandola also found that BME solicitors were more likely to have restrictions placed on their practising certificate by the SRA.  A ‘consistent pattern’ of BME solicitors are also being referred to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT).  The report showed that solicitors from Nigeria, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh were most likely to have cases raised against them by sources outside the SRA.  However, it said that a solicitor’s ethnicity ‘in itself does not predict whether they are more likely to have a case raised against them’.

The report revealed three factors that contributed to the disproportionately high number of cases raised against BME solicitors:  

1)      the fact that they were often newly-qualified;

2)      that many worked in small firms; and

3)      that they often worked in BME-owned firms

Has the Law Society/SRA been fully committed to equality and diversity? Regular readers and followers of this blog are, as always, invited to leave comments.  My previous blog post on BME solicitors either being denied professional indemnity insurance - or having to pay much higher premiums - can be seen by clicking http://www.interalialegal.com/2010/06/allegations-made-that-bme-solicitors-are-being-denied-professional-indemnity-insurance/

In short, the claimant was injured when she tripped and fell on a pathway that led up to a block of flats where she lived.  The council was the owner and occupier of both the block of flats and the pathway.  The council had inspected the path and adopted a policy of repairing defects that measured more than ¾ inch. At trial the inspector gave evidence and stated that on a visual assessment the defect in question had not exceeded this criterion. 

At first instance HHJ Murdoch QC found that the defect measured over ¾ inch and had had such dimensions over a period of several years while the inspector had been carrying out his inspections.  However, the judge found that the path was reasonably safe and there was no breach of s.2(2) of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957. 

The thrust of the appellant’s argument was that where a council had set a repair criterion as a matter of policy (¾ inch in this case) it must follow that there is a breach of duty if that policy is not complied with.  Smith LJ in dismissing the appeal held that “the test of whether, in all the circumstances, the council had taken such steps as are reasonable to see that visitors are reasonably safe does not depend upon what standards of safety the council sets itself as a matter of policy”.  The test is an objective one and it is for the judge to decide.  Smith LJ went on to add that the judge at first instance was entitled to find that the path was reasonably safe and that by inspecting the pathway periodically the council had complied with its duty of care. 

As always, readers and followers of this blog are invited to comment on the Court of Appeal’s decision.

Dr Pretty has told Michael Gove, the Education Secretary, and teachers at the PTI annual conference in Cambridge that the bulk of the A-level syllabus “focused on acquiring and revising knowledge just for exams“.  Dr Pretty said that “Students don’t have the memory skills.  Learning to retain [information] over a long period is something they struggle with in some cases.  They’re used to learning in bite-sized chunks and only what they need to know for examinations.  That comes from early exposure to the mentality, ‘you’ll need this, you won’t need that’, which has bedevilled the British state system”. 

As always, comments and views are invited on Dr Pretty’s opinions.  Perphaps a discussion could start on whether there are benefits of doing A-level law and then going on to read law at university.  If any students did this, please feel free to comment.

Reports suggest that some BME solicitors have seen their professional indemnity insurance rise by as much as 800%, despite not having received any complaints or claims against them. 

A Law Society study published last month found that BME firms were being treated differently by insurance companies, with 16% not offered cover by their previous insurer, compared with 6% in the rest of the profession.  Interestingly, the study revealed that that BME firms were notified of insurers’ decisions later than the rest of the profession, which makes it harder to look elsewhere for alternative quotations.

It is important that the Law Society acts with urgency to resolve these allegations. With the current threats to legal aid and access to justice generally – where many people are not sure where to go or whom to approach to obtain a resolution or redress to their problems – BME solicitors or any solicitor ought not to be exposed to such insurance practices when there is a clear, unmet need for accessible and affordable legal information, advice and representation.

Wall LJ referred to this case as a “cautionary tale, which all unmarried couples who are contemplating the purchase of a residential property as their home, and all solicitors who advise them, should study”.   Wall LJ went on to add that “In my judgment, the conveyance into joint names… created joint beneficial interests, and the parties agreed that when they separated they had equal interests.  There has to be something to displace those interest, and I have come to the conclusion that the passage of time is insufficient to do so, even if, in the meantime, the appellant has acquired alternative accommodation, and the respondent has paid all the outgoings…” 

By a 2:1 decision, the Court of Appeal overtuned the High Court’s previous judgment that the dispute should be decided on the basis of what was “fair and just”, and that Patricia Jones was entitled to a 90% share of the interests in the property. 

My earlier commentary on the issue of cohabiting couples and the residential home can be seen at http://www.interalialegal.com/2008/07/where-theres-a-will/

Readers and regular followers of this blog are asked to comment on:

a) do you agree with this decision?

b) should the courts treat human emotional relationships akin to commercial contracts when disputes do arise?

c) is there now a need for the reform of cohabitants law?

Training by pupillage is still seen as the best as fairest way of preparation for the profession and there are no plans to change its fundamental nature. In the last five years:

• The number of men and women undertaking pupillage are nearly equal. Sometimes the proportions of women slightly exceed that of men. In other years it is the other way round.

• 22.4% of pupils were drawn from a very wide range of ethnic and cultural backgrounds, exceeding the proportion of ethnic minorities found in other professions.

• A large proportion of pupils (40%) come from non-Russell Group universities. The other 60% were educated at Russell Group universities, including Oxford and Cambridge. Of that 60% there is a slight predominance of the non-Oxbridge universities.

• On average 26.7% of pupils had First Class degrees, just over 60% had Upper Second Class degrees and 10.2% had Lower Second Class degrees, across all universities showing that academic achievements seems to be a significant factor in attaining pupillage.

Some of the key recommendations for setting the standards and competencies for training include:

• Pupillages must continue to be advertised.

• The facility for part-time pupillages should be better publicised.

• Pupillages must be funded and the minimum amount of pupillage award should be raised from £10,000 to £12,000 per year.

• The standard of performance which a pupil’s work must achieve is defined as the standard at which the work (oral advocacy or written) is capable of rendering a real and valuable service to the client. Work must not be considered satisfactory unless it achieves that standard.

• The four core skills (conduct; advocacy; conferences and negotiations; and legal research and drafting) should continue to be the focus of training.

 The chair of the BSB, Baroness Deech DBE, commented that “….the Board is keen to ensure that attaining pupillage is a fair and open process for all those who apply as well as a guarantee to everyone that someone who undertakes pupillage will be properly skilled at the end of it. Making sure that this happens is vitally important in the interest of consumers, for encouraging a strong and diverse profession and for the public interest…” .

Derek Wood is now focusing his attention of Continuing Professional Development (CPD), which he expressed should be central to the assurance of quality in any modern profession. He went on to state “The Bar has much to be proud of in the excellence and specialisation that it offers the legal services sector. However, it is of crucial importance that its role in the market is reinforced by state of the art approaches to training and development”.