1
· 2 -
i)
Kenneth Clarke
4. b)
13th June 1992
Solicitors are also able to instruct the barrister in cases of rofessional negligence or "maladminstration" who usually acts for their lient adversary, and without informing their client (naturally I suppose) or properly instructing the barrister in their brief which results in barristers failing to submit the necessary evidence with professional immunity! Solicitors involved in cases of solicitors 'negligence' fail to submit defences & to counterclaims where practising solicitors seconded to the courts have control, which rather assumes that the hearing is perfunctory.
5. While we learn that the number of 'negligent' solicitors has risen from
2,900 in 1980 to 15,000 there is no record available to the public as to which solicitors or firms have been proven "dishonest or incompetent". The public should be able to have a fair choice when implementing their constitutional rights. It is not possible to know what 'discounts' and/or bonuses are negotiated within a closed & compulsory indemnity scheme. I am certainly aware that much strange behaviour & contradictory advice is being given by solicitors who it has transpired have themselves been involved in solicitors 'negligence'. (Even from specilist firms which must. raise speculation about a type of Lloyds spiral affect operated).
ii)
iii)
iv)
If I might respectfully suggest that some remedies would be:
Solicitors professional indemnity should be placed individually by firms on the competitive insurance market in line with government policy to prevent the current conflict of interest.
A totally independant body, not with Ombudsmen restricted powers, should be set up to handle complaints about solicitors "dishonesty or incompetence" in the democratic interest.
When solicitors behaviour causes their client loss & damage there is no body in effect to make them accountable. This independant body could also oversee v) and insure that cases of 'negligent' solicitors are being dealt with properly by the Solicitors Indemnity Fund & the courts (e.g.4b) Currently it seems that no one has authority to interfer with the courts when decisions are made by practicing solicitors in the interests of solic- itors in cases of solicitors "dishonesty or incompetence" (e.g. 3b)
The powers of practicing solicitors seconded to the courts should be curtailed and an alternate system introduced for cases of solicitors 'negligence'. I've always understood that preventing evidence or expert evidence being given is a crime against democratic justice yet the courts - under the auspicies of practicing solicitors - are effectually conspiring to just that. Court procedure should be an automatic leave to provide evidence, not one requiring special permission!
Many more specifics about legalities & court procedure should be included in the education syllabus at grass roots. I realise that the Citizenship Association can't cover everything required or all schools even with teachers co-operation. Young people should be thoroughly prepared for the hazards of using solicitors who currently clock-up $200 million for indemnity claims alone. (We all buy houses etc.)
Solicitors should be required to carry indemnity for their new powers of advocacy in courts when out of the courts they've demonstrated liability for hundreds of millions of pounds - not to would show government as condoning the situation and against the democratic interest.
Laws should be modified so that, for example, statutory limitation periods do not jeopardise the clients case. In that instance a penalising points scheme should operate so that the solicitor is struck off. At the moment