Judicial review
Gazette continues coverage of the Law Society’s judicial review against the government over criminal legal aid fees, which began on Tuesday (12 December).
They note that our Counsel’s argument on the first day of the hearing was that by ignoring the independent review’s recommendations, the government’s decision was irrational, lacked evidence-based reasons and breached the constitutional right of access to justice.
Leasehold Reform Bill
Solicitors Journal continues coverage of the Law Society’s response to the second reading of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill.
Law Society president Nick Emmerson said: “We welcome the government’s commitment to deliver on these proposals by amending the Bill as it makes its way through Parliament.
“Once the missing provisions have been included, the Bill could impact millions of homeowners and home buyers in England and Wales and could make improvements to the home buying and selling process.”
Wills reform
Solicitors Journal writes about the Law society’s views on electronic wills and our response to the Law Commission’s consultation on wills reform.
Law Society president Nick Emmerson said: “We hope that if electronic wills are introduced, more people will be encouraged to write wills. However, it is vital that there is an opportunity for detailed examination of what is being proposed.”
Jade Gani, member of the Law Society’s Wills and Equity Committee, spoke to BBC Cornwall (from 01:21:20) about electronic wills and predatory marriage.
Renters Reform Bill
Property Industry Eye and Mortgage Solutions report that the All-Party Parliamentary Group for the Private Rented Sector has warned that certain provisions in the Renters Reform Bill, including the ban on “no-fault” evictions, will fail without sufficient resources. Both articles mention the Law Society’s view on the Bill.
Cyber attacks on law firms
Mondaq analyses cyber threats that face the legal profession and mentions the Law Society guidance on cyberattacks for law firms.
Compulsory mediation
Today’s Family Lawyer reports that a ruling was issued last month (29 November) on the case of Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil by the Court of Appeal, which confirms that courts can compel parties to engage in alternative dispute resolution (ADR).
Law Society president Nick Emmerson said:
“The Law Society strongly believes that non-court based dispute resolution will usually be in the best interests of the parties, but has always had real reservations about a blanket rule making any form of such process mandatory.
This judgment reflects those reservations in that it recognises that in some circumstances it may be contrary to a party’s right of access to the courts to compel them to engage in a non-court based dispute resolution process.
We welcome the Court’s clear guidance as to when and how judges should intervene to encourage non-court based resolution of disputes.”
Also worth a read:
- LSB has pledged to increase oversight of regulators – Gazette
- Slapp debate dogged by entrenched views on both sides – Times (£)
- New podcast outlines the evolution of corporate law – Legal Cheek
- Analysis of the asylum backlog – BBC
- Women make up 37% of law firms partners – Gazette
- Opinion: Why SME’s should develop sustainability strategy – Legal Cheek