Letters roundup: 11 March 2022

Representation right not unqualified

In defending lawyers representing Russian clients some have cited the right to legal representation as justification (‘Coalition of the indignant’, 4 March). However, the right to legal representation is not unlimited. Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights guarantees that every person ‘charged with a criminal offence’ may instruct legal representation. If a person cannot afford legal representation, the state must provide it.

There is no unqualified right to legal representation in other circumstances, either in statute or common law. In R v Board of Visitors of HM Prison, the Maze [1988], a prisoner assaulted an officer and was then confined to his cell. The prisoner appealed against his confinement as unlawful because he was denied legal representation. The House of Lords dismissed his appeal. A fair hearing does not necessitate legal representation: whether legal representation is required depends on the circumstances of each case.

The courts have maintained the same position in education (AB v University of XYZ [2020]), in employment (R v X School Governors [2011]) and before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (Macpherson v Law Society [2005]).

Russian clients have the right to seek legal representation and should be afforded representation if charged with a criminal offence. However, lawyers are not obliged to accept instructions in every civil or commercial case, especially if doing so would be unconscionable.

Samuel Pitchford

Solicitor, Brecon

Turning the clock back for women

It is hard to think of anything more damaging to the prospects of women at work than the menopause pretext put forward by Farhana Shahzady (Divorce settlements and the menopause, Gazette, 4 March).

It reminds one of the beliefs that were advanced to prevent women succeeding in any career in the 19th century and earlier – they were too fragile, too emotional, their voices too weak, their smaller brains addled by reproduction.

Most women do not suffer from the menopause to the extent that they have to stop work. Women judges seem to cope with it just fine! The provisions of my bill to reform financial provision were mis-stated. It would put a far greater emphasis on child maintenance up to the age of 21, and bring English law into line with the law of Scotland and most western countries, reducing litigation and exorbitant legal costs. It would accord with no-fault divorce, soon to be introduced.

Ruth Deech (The Baroness Deech DBE QC)

House of Lords

Reasons not to bank on cryptocurrency

A fee-share law firm last month announced that it is the first top-200 UK law firm to take payment in cryptocurrency. The firm claims this means it can work with a wider variety of clients and its ‘partners’ (self-employed consultant solicitors) can be paid how they choose.

They are, of course, not the first ever law firm to do so in the UK, with other firms outside the top 200 having done so as early as 2013. Our firm, Inksters, will not be following suit, for the following reasons:

1. Volatility

Cryptocurrencies can fluctuate widely in value. Inksters would not expect their consultant solicitors to agree a fee in ether that might end up being a small fraction of the pound sterling equivalent upon payment.

2. Lack of regulation

The current lack of regulation in the cryptocurrency market has seen many scams, hacks and market manipulations. It is therefore not an area that Inksters would wish to be seen in or have their consultant solicitors be part of.

3. Money laundering

Cryptocurrencies are susceptible to money laundering activity. The predominant reason is anonymity. Individuals and criminal organisations can mask their true identities by using different aliases and pseudonyms, essentially allowing transactions to be conducted anonymously.

4. Slow and cumbersome

Due to their complexity and their encrypted, distributed nature, blockchain transactions can take a while to process, compared with ‘traditional’ payment systems such as cash or debit cards. Bitcoin transactions can take several hours to finalise.

5. Environmental harm

Cryptocurrency transactions use a huge amount of computing power and vast amounts of energy. The electricity used per year to mine bitcoin surpasses the annual energy usage of many countries in the world.

For these reasons Inksters will continue to take payment, and pay our consultant solicitors, in old-fashioned pounds sterling.

Brian Inkster

Inksters, Glasgow

Sentence sensibility

Obiter rightly observes that lawyers will rarely use one word when eight sheets of A4 will do (25 February). The response of Michael Ellis QC MP to a Commons question about whether there had been a cost to the public purse ‘from expenditure on alcohol, food, suitcases and a fridge at gatherings’ – a pithy ‘No’ – suggests that the former attorney general, who practised at the criminal bar, is only too well aware of the axiom that verbosity by lawyers inevitably leads to longer sentences.

Adrian Brodkin

London N2

Picking up the bill

You tell us that the MoJ has written off £18.3m on a failed IT system (‘MoJ writes off £18.3m in building courts case management system’, 3 March). Why is it always the taxpayer who pays? Why doesn’t the IT company pay? Who manages these contracts?

M J Tanner

Solicitor (retired)