Grandfather in law – peace at last

One of the advantages of living in a different country to one’s children is the ability to live a more solitary life, without constant calls from family. But that is changing soon, since we are moving back to the UK in a few days – and the first childcare calls have already arrived. (Grandchildren are a blessing, and we should always have lived in the same country as they do.)

So, in these last days of living in peace and not with Peppa Pig, here is a round-up of a grandfather’s week – with my mind half on my future life.

I cheered at the adoption by the Council of Europe of the world’s first-ever international treaty protecting the profession of lawyer. The drafters intend this to be an effective response to increasing attacks on the practice of the profession, whether in the form of harassment, threats or assaults, or interference with the exercise of professional duties.

In the United States, they have the misfortune to have a president who has come to tea and has drunk all the lawyers from the taps (the latest slurp being of Paul, Weiss).

In Europe, on the other hand, we will now have Article 6 of the new Convention – when ratified by a sufficient number of governments, including our own – which recognises the right of a lawyer to offer and provide legal assistance without restrictions being placed on the exercise of those rights, and without suffering adverse consequences as a result of being identified with their clients or their clients’ cause.

I also enjoyed reading Paul Bennett’s article on Why it’s time to scrap the Legal Services Board in this week's Gazette. He says that there have been no benefits to having an uber-regulator – ‘The Board has contributed nothing which can be said to have protected either the public or the profession in relation to standards’. On top of that, he says the LSB is complicit in the recent failings of the Solicitors Regulation Authority, having signed off on its rules.

For years, many commentators have argued that the architecture of the Legal Services Act 2007 isn’t working (the SRA’s power grab in relation to fining powers, undermining the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, being another case in point).

But the government has been too busy doing other things: ‘Not now, Bernard!’ it cried. And now that a monster has eaten Bernard, the government hasn’t even noticed.

Maybe the new ‘bonfire of the quangos’ that the prime minister hinted at last week might include some sensible revisions? (I should point out that it is position of the Law Society that the Legal Services Act should not be revisited at this time.)

The president of the Law Society came back from a trip to Japan last week, where he accompanied the foreign secretary and the business and trade secretary. This is very good news. A global trade war may be breaking out, but, fortunately for us, it concerns goods and not services (despite US lawyers being drunk from the tap). Our president was able to strengthen ties with the Japanese legal profession, as well as raise issues with the UK ministers around apprentices, immigration and trade deals.

City solicitors have for years gone abroad and conquered the wild things. Like Max, they deserve the hot dinner awaiting them at home.

The interesting thing to observe for the future is whether US international law firms, our strong competitors (and often now our partners), will suffer from the shenanigans at home. If so, this may have the effect of strengthening not only the international success of our own profession but also London’s offerings as a global legal centre, in areas such as international arbitration.

If you doubt it, look at the opening words of the executive order against Paul, Weiss from the president who came to tea: ‘Global law firms have for years played an outsized role in undermining the judicial process and in the destruction of bedrock American principles’. Will clients hesitate over using US lawyers in the future, when they have a choice of others?

And, finally, we come to a subject which never goes away, bothering us every day of the week: the hunt for more resources for our crippled legal system. This week, there was the good news that the government will put in a further £1.5 million to keep the LawtechUK programme going for a further year - enough to buy a few hours of time of an IT specialist, or to train generative AI in the meaning of ten legal terms.

As they search for elusive resources, the lord chancellor is leading the pack with a butterfly net, and the president of the Law Society is following in her footsteps with a twig, and they’re singing: ‘We’re going on a bear hunt, we’re going to catch a big one, what a beautiful day, we’re not scared.’

Jonathan Goldsmith is Law Society Council member for EU & International, chair of the Law Society’s Policy & Regulatory Affairs Committee and a member of its board. All views expressed are personal and are not made in his capacity as a Law Society Council member, nor on behalf of the Law Society