Kenneth Clarke MP
retary of State for the Home Office
50 Queen Anne's Gate
London SW1
86 Victoria Road
Barnet, Herts. EN4 9PE
13th June 1992
Dear Mr. Clarke,
I am
sure that you will be surprised to learn that the current civil legal system prevents a citizen (rather than commercial organisation) from obtaining justice or receiving a fair hearing against solicitors "dishonesty or incompetence". I thought that I would take the trouble to write to you about the problems at grass roots because you could not know about this anomaly to the democratic interest.
1. It has been reported in the press that professional costs to cover the
£200 million indemnity claims this year, paid out of a mutual fund, are "wholly unacceptable" (Philip Ely) and that as a result some solicitors are being forced out of business. (Indemnity claims rise by £40 million p.a.)
2. The Solicitors Complaints Bureau (SCB) has no statutory powers to deal with "dishonesty or incompetence" and the Legal Ombudsman, while independant, has restricted power and can only handle complaints arising from the SCB. The SCB used to pass 'negligence' cases to the Negligence Panel but the Law Societ has abolished this, I was informed by the SCR earlier this year, primarily because the solicitors were failing to take on the cases! (Presumably because of the conflict of interest) When honest solicitors refuse to handle such cases of any consequence the public have no access to justice currently they cannot instruct counsel direct or EEC solicitors or barristers (not in the mutual funds) to act in the British courts.
-
3. a)
When a member of the public in the course of events is obliged to act for themselves in civil cases they are likely to find that solicitors are not indispensable to achieving justice. e.g. a defendant providing Further & Better Particulars in good faith could find judgement found against them if the court considers that the document is badly drafted, does not deal with issues of law or is scandelous - which is inevitable when solicitors as 'officers of the court' are dishonest.
b)
As you know, practicing solicitors are seconded to the courts as 'District Judges' where they can control the outcome of cases & trials. In a specialist case they are able to prevent expert evidence being given which, of course, would be a conflict of interest in cases of solicitors dishonesty. (1.above) They are judges outside democratic statute.
A case involving solicitors 'negligence' can sometimes be recommended for arbitration automatically or at the 'negligent' solicitors request which is a process heard by a District Judge - a practicing solicitor, in a closed court with no system of appeal to a non-solicitor. Such circumstances are not in the interests of democratic justice. You are aware of miscarriages of justice in the criminal system yet in the civil system miscarriages of justice are being perpetuated by the system itself.
4. a)
Solicitors instructed for cases of solicitors 'negligence' are able to act, or not act according to their professional practice, so that their client has judgement found against them from a variety of ploys including failure to return documents to court within statutory periods, losing doc- uments or failing to attend court. Court proceedings should be for the benefit of the people not for the control of solicitors.