Letters roundup: 27 October 2023

Axiom Ince - the state should pay

I write in response to your Leader on the collapse of Axiom Ince (20 October) and other coverage. It seems to me that this was not the sort of case that should be paid for by the Compensation Fund at all. By that, I am not suggesting that clients should lose compensation. It is essential that client money is protected. It is also reasonable that the fund is paid for by solicitors to provide that protection in the normal run of things.

But this case is anything but normal. You mention that insurers might pay for some of the losses. The suggestion implies that would relieve the industry of the cost, but that is wrong. If the insurers pay this bill, premiums will go up to compensate them. So why is this not normal and why does that make a difference?

To my mind, this was a massive failure of regulation. You ask the question as to whether the SRA should sign off on law firm takeovers. My answer is that there is no question that it should. It should also take responsibility for the ongoing regulation of such giants. It has clearly failed to do any of that. If the regulator fails, that is not a cost that should be borne by the industry. This is not a self-regulated sector. The SRA does not do what the industry wants. Regulation is a matter for the state. It is the state and not the industry that has the SRA chasing solicitors over price comparison, despite the number of unregulated lawyers that face no such pressure.

Where such regulation fails and causes enormous losses, those losses should be borne by the state. If there is no cost to the state in a failure in regulation, where is the incentive to regulate properly?

Alexander May

Partner, solicitor-advocate

BladeLaw, Gloucester

Are we a profession or not?

Well, well, well; and a deep financial one (Leader, 20 October).

Are we a profession, or are we an industry? We seem to be the former for indemnity purposes, but the latter for ‘lay’ investment. We shouldn’t be both.

Either ditch the money people or the Compensation Fund.

Simples.

Alexander McCulloch

Haywards Heath

Changing the culture on divorce

Rob Parker’s response to Jo O’Sullivan’s article relating to a cultural shift on divorce, to include de-escalation, further obligations on resolution and working on the media’s approach is wholly agreeable (Feedback, 20 October).

However, I believe that further reforms are necessary beyond the re-emphasis on mediation and collaborative law. Several clients will be deterred from mediation if direct communications are not preferable or there is mistrust. Collaborative law can often be an overwhelming suggestion in light of the lack of publicity regarding this approach, leading to lack of ‘word of mouth’ stories and incorrect impressions of feeling like a ‘guinea pig’ separated party.

In reality, there needs to be more emphasis throughout law firms, in the media, and in the courts on alternative options to encourage discussions and exposure. A separated party believing that they are following a tried and tested process, which is something they may have heard of through the grapevine from friends/family in similar positions, has the potential to change perspectives without too much onerous work.

To this end, the generic processes need to be reviewed when providing client advice. It is not simply a case of mediation, negotiation or court. Incredibly productive processes such as arbitration are often lost when trying to keep advice simple, concise and direct in layperson’s terms. There are thousands of cases where the lesser-known alternatives would thrive, especially given our duty to keep parties out of court where possible.

I would suggest a procedure for solicitors’ negotiations. Too many cases fall through years of letters and correspondence with negligible progress; simply as it is ‘better the devil you know’ against pushing the court button. A ‘Form C’ style guidance sheet for solicitors, outlining a recommended process outside of court but in a non-binding fashion, would help ensure the straggler cases in the background have a more assured timeline. At the very least, this would provide solicitors with an earlier indication as to whether a binding structure would regrettably conclude matters faster in the court remit, or whether there is engagement that provides hope for the prospect of a reciprocated settlement by consent.

Hannah Newberry

Family solicitor, Alun Jones Family Law, Cardiff

Disclosure warning

Thank you to Louise Hodges of Kingsley Napley (Seen & Heard, 20 October) who writes tellingly about the inadequacies and mischiefs of the disclosure provisions of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996.

I recall vividly how the Law Society’s Criminal Law Committee, which at that time I chaired, advised and lobbied against those proposals in the run-up to their enactment, which had been in the face of our own and others’ warnings.

We repeated those warnings in formal consultations time without number, and when in meetings with the police service and other agencies.

Indeed, in response to my letter to him, the then Senior Liaison Judge Lord Justice Judge invited me and our then, formidable PA Roger Ede, to a meeting in the Royal Courts of Justice.

He had been very receptive to our concerns and had clearly entertained similar misgivings. There had been talk of a further meeting to be chaired by him and to include Lord (Willie) Bach, then in the  relevant government post, but nothing came of that notion.

Now we face the altogether predicted and predictable consequences.

A radical revision of the statute is of the essence – and the sooner the better.

Malcolm Fowler

Solicitor and higher court advocate (retired)

Former Law Society Council member

Kings Heath, Birmingham