There is one good thing to come out of the MP's expense claim scandal: lawyers are, for the time being at least, not the most hated and least trusted profession in the country. Don't worry, I'm not going to carry on bleating on about that subject, and I promise not to mention that Alister Darling also put his dirty fingers in the public purse to pay his accountant's bill for preparing his tax return because "it was in the public interest that he paid the right amount of tax". He said this in answer to a question posed during a tv interview. No doubt the Nation were, like me, screaming don't we all, but we have to pay our accountants out of our earnings. The interviewer gave him a refreshingly hard time, and the only additional question I would have put to him is, how the fuck can you sleep at night you dishonest bastard. Sorry, I appear to be bleating on again.
A friend recently asked what the difference is, in the UK, between solicitors and lawyers, since in the US, where she lives, there are just lawyers, and solicitors are another thing entirely. In England, solicitors are forbidden from soliciting, in every sense of the word. I would say that's ironic, but I'm far too fearful of being arrested by the Irony Police to suggest that, and receive the caution "you do not have to say something ironic, but if you do not mention, when questioned something ironic you later rely on in Court..."
In the UK "lawyer" is an umbrella term for solicitors and barristers. Barristers are allowed to solicit, providing its not the sort conducted in Kings Cross, because their professional organisation, the Bar Counsel, actually supports them. They are also allowed to wear wigs and are not allowed to shake hands with each other. The Law Society, by contrast, continually rolls over on our behalf and charges us an annual levy for doing so. It also sets up specialised Panel's that we need to join to demonstrate that we are competent in our chosen field, and charges us a levy for doing so. It also invites the public to make complaints about us, and charges us a levy for doing so.
Over the last few years the Government has been looking for ways of cutting the Legal Aid budget (presumably so there is more cash available for the MP's state of the art electrical equipment) and along came the Carter reforms. Lord Carter, in his infinite wisdom, concluded that criminal legal aid should be the first to be cut since it would be popular with the vast majority of the public, and the only people to suffer would be already the most disadvantaged section of society and the least able to protest. So they brought in fixed fees for criminal work which means that it doesn't matter how much time you spend preparing a case you get paid the same. The Law Society wrote a polite letter to the Government saying that it was jolly bad form, and could they possibly reconsider. The Government blew are raspberry back, and that was the end of the protest. Trade unions are prevented, by law, from running a closed shop, and employees are entitled to join whichever union they please. The Law Society is a closed shop, but it suits the Government so we can expect no changes there.
The Bar Counsel, by contrast said, effectively "bring it on" with your reforms, and their members agreed not to accept briefs for fixed fees. A situation arose where, in a very high profile case where an innocent young boy had been shot to death by a teenager, no barrister would accept the brief to defend him. Since the defendant is entitled to legal representation under the European Convention on Human Rights, and it looked like the defendant may be acquitted on a technicality the Government were forced make an exception, and barristers are no longer stuck with fixed fees in certain cases. Bar Counsel - 1 - Law Society - 0.
A final word: a recent President of the Law Society who is now involved with the Solicitor's Regulatory Authority, advised that all reprimands, cautions etc that solicitors are bestowed for not being as brilliant as they should be sought a gagging order to prevent Private Eye from publishing the fact that he had, in fact, been repremanded whist in private practice. Is that ironic? Possibly in the Alanis sense of the word.
