Martin Partington: Spotlight on the Justice System

Keeping the English Legal System under review

Archive for the ‘Chapter 4’ Category

Proposed Constitution, Democracy and Rights Commission

leave a comment »

One proposal that caught the eye in the Conservative Party’s manifesto for the December 2019 general election was that, following the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, it would be necessary to look at “broader aspects” of the UK’s constitution. The idea was that a constitution, democracy, and rights commission should be established to examine the following issues:

  • the relationship between the government, parliament, and the courts;
  • the functioning of the royal prerogative;
  • the role of the House of Lords; and
  • access to justice for ordinary people.

Other areas would include examining judicial review and amending the Human Rights Act 1998 to balance the rights of individuals, national security, and effective government.

The Government has said that it wants to ensure a range of expertise is represented on the commission. It also wants the commission to evidence from third parties and civic society to inform any recommendations. However, there are currently limited details available on the remit, form, and composition of the commission.

Several commentators and academics have welcomed the general principle of reviewing the UK’s constitutional arrangements. However, some have expressed concern about the context of the commission, particularly coming after the Supreme Court found against the Government on constitutional issues.

Those interested in the starting to think about the issues which the Commission, once established, might consider will find the Research Briefing paper, written by Charley Coleman from the House of Lords Library and published in late March 2020, to be an excellent introduction.

The briefing can be found at https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/lln-2020-0089/

Remote/online courts – worldwide developments

leave a comment »

Over recent years, there have been significant moves towards the use of Information Techologies in the delivery of legal and dispute resolution services. The Covid 19 pandemic has provided a sharp impetus towards the adoption of new practices and procedures, given the difficulties of holding trials in traditional court-room settings arising from the need for social distancing.

Under the leadership of Prof Richard Susskind, a consortium of groups interested in the development of on-line courts has created a brilliant website, Remote Courts.org, which provides an extensive clearing-house of information about developments around the world.

One of the primary objectives of the website is to try to ensure that, as ideas emerge, wheels are not unnecessarily re-invented. There is now a great deal of international experience which can be drawn on, and this is expanding rapidly.

The site is available at https://remotecourts.org/

 

 

 

Written by lwtmp

July 3, 2020 at 11:32 am

Covid 19 and the English Legal System (8): guidance on new working practices

leave a comment »

As readers of this blog will already be aware, I have been considering the impact of the Covid 19 pandemic on the English Legal System. There will, I am sure, be many more blog entries to come.

For those not involved on a daily basis in the work of courts and tribunals, it can be hard to get an overview of what is happening.

An invaluable source of information is available on the Judiciary website which brings together the vast range of advice and guidance on how courts and tribunals should be working in the current environment. Some of this advice is general – applying across the board; other advice relates to specific jurisdictions.

Access to the guidance, which is updated when necessary, is available at https://www.judiciary.uk/coronavirus-covid-19-advice-and-guidance/

Covid 19 and the English Legal System (7): steps to recovery

leave a comment »

Since March 2020, the Government has worked closely with the judiciary and others to ensure the justice system continues to perform its vital role while keeping court and tribunal users safe.

To achieve this, Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service has rapidly expanded the use of technology to allow hearings to be conducted by phone and video.

HMCTS also temporarily closed around half of its buildings to focus effort and resources more effectively. The most urgent cases have been prioritised by the judiciary to ensure public safety, protect the vulnerable and safeguard children.

Having responded to the immediate crisis, HMCTS is now focusing on how to recover its operations to increase courts and tribunals capacity to deal both with normal workloads across jurisdictions and outstanding cases.

HMCTS has recently published a progress report to update those interested on its recovery plans. It sets out in a short booklet format the areas of working being undertaken in the short and medium terms.

It assumes that the need to continue to maintain social distancing as far as possible will continue, at least into 2021. It also emphasises that the programme of reform of Courts and Tribunals is continuing. Lessons from the experience of new ways of working, resulting from the need to meet the challenge of Covid 19, must be learned as the broader reform programme unfurls.

The Progress update is at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/court-and-tribunal-recovery-update-in-response-to-coronavirus

The update has been accompanied by a statement from the Lord Chief Justice and the Vice President of Tribunals, available at https://www.judiciary.uk/announcements/courts-and-tribunals-recovery/

See also a blog from the Head of HMCTS at https://insidehmcts.blog.gov.uk/2020/07/01/coronavirus-recovering-in-our-courts-and-tribunals/

 

The Legal System of Wales – recent developments

leave a comment »

In my book, Introduction to the English Legal System, I write that the book is “about the English legal system (which includes at least for the present the legal system in Wales)”.

However, devolution has led to a number of developments which need to be noted which point to the creation of a distinct system of government for Wales. In this context it is possible to see the outlines of a new Welsh Legal system beginning to emerge.

1 The National Assembly of Wales – executive and ‘legislature’

The first Government of Wales Act 1998 (GOWA 98) began a process of devolving powers to Wales. It created a new body, the National Assembly of Wales. Under GOWA 98 this body had executive functions in delivering policy and services in specific areas such as agriculture, culture, economic development, education, health, housing, local government, social services and planning. Henceforth, the National Assembly became responsible for carrying those out in respect of Wales.

At the same time. the National Assembly was given limited legislative powers including the making of regulations, rules and orders, and the giving of financial assistance. The National Assembly was also the body which held the Welsh Government to account.

This blending of executive functions and parliamentary functions proved to be very confusing.

In fact, soon after the National Assembly of Wales was established an informal division was created between the ‘Welsh Assembly Government’ (Ministers and civil servants predominantly based in Cathays Park, Cardiff and other offices across Wales) and the ‘National Assembly for Wales’ (Assembly Members and officials based in Cardiff Bay).

2 National Assembly and Welsh Government

The informal division between the legislative and executive branches of the Welsh Government was formally recognised in the Government of Wales Act 2006 (GOWA 2006).

This established a newly constituted National Assembly as the legislature. It also created a separate executive – initially called the ‘Welsh Assembly Government’, later amended to the ‘Welsh Government’. It was made accountable to the National Assembly.

GOWA 2006 gave the National Assembly power to pass its own primary legislation – initially called ‘Assembly Measures’, from 2011 called  ‘Assembly Acts’. These Measures and Acts were limited to 21 areas of activity which were conferred on the National Assembly by the UK Parliament in Westminster. The Wales Act 2014 increased those power by giving the National Assembly limited taxation powers.

The Wales Act 2017 changed the system for determining the powers of the National Assembly from a ‘conferred powers’ model to a ‘reserved powers’ model. (This is consistent with the models adopted for Scotland and Northern Ireland.) In a reserved powers model, there is no specific list of devolved subjects. The model operates on the basis that everything is devolved unless it is reserved to the UK Parliament.

3. Senedd Cymru or the Welsh Parliament.

The increased importance of the Parliamentary function led politicians in Wales to argue that the name of the National Assembly should be altered to reflect more clearly its legislative function. After a period of consultation and legislation, the name of the National Assembly of Wales was changed, on 5 May 2020, to ‘Senedd Cymru or the Welsh Parliament’.  With full law-making powers and the ability to vary taxes, the new name will reflect its constitutional status as a national parliament.

4. A Welsh Justice system

Under the doctrine of the separation of powers, governments comprise 3 separate branches: a legislature, an executive and a judiciary. For Wales, the first two of these are now in place. Currently, there is no clearly delineated Welsh Justice system. There are, however, moves to change the current position.

  • Commission for Justice in Wales

The Welsh Government established a Commission for Justice in Wales in December 2017. It reported in 2019. It was chaired by Lord John Thomas, who had recently retired as the Lord Chief Justice for England and Wales.

Its report is a very wide-ranging one covering such issues as: legal aid and advice; new approaches to civil dispute resolution; new approaches to the sentencing and rehabilitation of offenders and the protection of victims of crime. I plan to summarise its principal recommendations in a separate blog item.

The work of the Commission for Justice has been complemented by a programme of social research, funded by the Nuffield Foundation, on the development of Administrative Justice in Wales, which has produced reports on matters including housing and education.

  • The Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee Consultation

Arising from the Commission’s report, the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee of Senedd Cymru ran,  from March to June 2020, a consultation on Making Justice Work in Wales.  Its terms of reference stated that its work should be in 2 parts: (i) fact-finding and looking forward; and  (ii) analysis of how the justice system could operate more effectively in Wales

In Part 1, the Committee intends

  • To identify and map the Senedd and Welsh Government’s existing responsibilities and functions relating to the scrutiny of justice matters;
  • To identify and review the current funding arrangements for justice matters already within the responsibility of the Senedd and Welsh Government;
  • To consider the existing operation of justice functions in Wales, including Welsh Government policies in devolved areas and their interaction with the administration of justice;
  • To consider the impact of relationships between UK and Welsh competence on specific justice matters and to identify areas of concern;
  • To consider how the Senedd could have a more proactive role in the scrutiny of justice, including how justice bodies could engage with the Senedd.

In Part 2,  the Committee is asked:

  • Using results of Part 1, to explore any areas of concern in the balance of justice powers and accordingly whether a more coherent and joined-up approach to justice policy could be achieved;
  • To consider the implications, consequences and practicalities of any potential justice devolution;
  • To learns lessons on the approach to scrutiny of justice from the UK and other legislatures.

The outcome of the inquiry has not yet been published.

Sources:

General information about the Welsh Government is at https://gov.wales/

Information about Senedd Cymru is at https://senedd.wales/en/Pages/Home.aspx

The Commission on Justice in Wales Report is at https://gov.wales/commission-justice-wales-report

The Nuffield Foundation sponsored programme on Administrative Justice in Wales is at https://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/project/paths-to-administrative-justice-in-wales

Information about the Senedd Cymru Committee inquiry is at https://business.senedd.wales/mgConsultationDisplay.aspx?id=388&RPID=1017209288&cp=yes

 

 

 

 

Covid 19 and the English Legal System (5): Parliamentary inquiries (revised)

leave a comment »

Those interested in how key actors in the legal world are trying to cope with the implications for the English Legal System of  Covid-19 might care to follow the work – currently on-going – of two  Parliamentary Select Committees.

The  House of Commons Justice Committee launched an inquiry into Coronavirus (COVID-19) on 31 March 2020. It is examining the impact on prisons, the probation service and the court systems. They have held three evidence gathering sessions in which they heard from a number of key witnesses, including the Lord Chief Justice, the Minister of State, key officials from Prisons and Probation, the Chair of the Magistrates Association. It is likely that the Committee will publish a relatively short report in the course of the next few weeks.

At the same time on 13 May 2020, the House of Lords Constitution Committee opened an inquiry into the Constitutional implications of Covid 19. This will be a more wide-ranging inquiry than that being held by the Commons Justice Committee.

The announcement of the inquiry states:

The Covid-19 pandemic and the Government’s measures to respond to it have significant constitutional implications, as well as health, social and economic ones. These include:

  • The ability of Parliament to hold the Government to account
  • Scrutiny of emergency powers
  • The operation of the courts

The Constitution Committee will consider these issues and other related matters as part of an umbrella inquiry into the constitutional implications of Covid-19. The Committee will initially explore questions such as:

  • What can Parliament do to maximise its scrutiny of the emergency regulations and to hold the Government to account effectively during lockdown? How are adjustments to procedures and processes working in the House of Lords?
  • What are the consequences for different ways of Parliament working on effectiveness, accessibility, fairness and transparency?
  • What emergency powers has the Government sought during the pandemic and what powers has it used and how?
  • What lessons are there for future uses of emergency powers, their safeguards and the processes for scrutinising them?
  • How has the Government used both law and guidance to implement the lockdown and what have been the consequences of its approach? How has this varied across the constituent parts of the United Kingdom?
  • What liberties has Parliament loaned the Government during lockdown? What are the processes for reviewing and returning them? Are the sunset provisions in the Acts and regulations sufficient?
  • How is the court system operating during the pandemic? What has been the impact of virtual proceedings on access to justice, participation in proceedings, transparency and media reporting?
  • How will the justice system manage the increasing backlog of criminal cases? Is it appropriate to rethink the jury system during the pandemic, and beyond, and if so how?

 

To date, the Committee has issued a call for evidence and has had a number of hearings at which oral evidence has been presented. Among the witnesses who have already given evidence is the ‘guru’ of the use of IT in the delivery of legal services, Prof Richard Susskind and the leading researcher on the justice system, Prof Dame Hazel Genn.

I suspect this report will take somewhat longer to appear than that of the Commons Committee.

In addition to these two inquiries which cover many aspects of the working of the legal and justice systems, in mid-May 2020, the House of Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee also launched an inquiry: Responding to Covid-19 and the Coronavirus Act 2020. The aim of this inquiry is set out as follows:

The Coronavirus Act 2020 was emergency legislation passed by Parliament on 25 March, to provide the Government with the powers it wanted to tackle the Covid-19 pandemic in the UK.

Under section 98 of the Act 2020, every six months there is “parliamentary review” which means that the Government must, so far as is practicable, make arrangements for the following motion to be debated and voted on: “That the temporary provisions of the Coronavirus Act 2020 should not yet expire.”

PACAC is launching an inquiry to scrutinise the constitutional and public administration aspects of the Act, with the goal of supporting and informing that debate.

It has issued a call for evidence but has not to date arranged for any meetings or hearings.

For links to all these inquiries see:

The Justice inquiry is at https://committees.parliament.uk/work/254/coronavirus-covid19-the-impact-on-prison-probation-and-court-systems/

The House of Lords Constitution Committee is at https://committees.parliament.uk/work/298/constitutional-implications-of-covid19/

The evidence of Profs Susskind and Genn is at https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/0f0810d1-9489-4506-9108-139f6d4f221e

The PACAC inquiry is at https://committees.parliament.uk/work/310/responding-to-covid19-and-the-coronavirus-act-2020/

All evidence sessions held by Parliamentary Committees can be accessed at https://parliamentlive.tv/Commons.

Covid 19 and the English Legal System (2) Virtual hearings and on-line courts

leave a comment »

Almost exactly a year ago (May 2 2019) I noted in this blog the introduction of the Courts and Tribunals (Online Procedure) Bill. This was to be an important staging post in the process of reforming Courts and Tribunals, to enable more hearings and other proceedings to be on-line. The Bill would have provided for the creation of a new Procedure Committee to deal with how such hearings and other proceedings should take place. The Bill collapsed when the General Election held in the last autumn of 2019 was announced.

Nevertheless, far from derailing the Government’s reform plans, the Covid 19 pandemic has arguably done more to speed up the progress towards the development of new online courts than might have been imagined. Although the Online Procedure Bill has not, to date, been introduced, the Coronavirus Act 2020 has effectively stepped in. For as long as the Act is in force (the legislation is time-limited to 2 years), it provides for the transformation of ways in which courts and tribunals are to be run. It does this by disapplying or amending existing legislation regulating a large number of aspects of public policy.

Sections 53 to 57 and Schedules 23 – 27 of the Coronavirus Act deal with the use of video and audio technology in Courts and Tribunals. I do not propose to go through these provisions in detail. But it worth setting out the policy objectives of these provisions. I have adapted these from the Explanatory Notes to the Act:

1. [Although] the courts currently have various statutory and inherent powers which enable them to make use of technology. The Act amends existing legislation so as to enable the use of technology either in video/audio-enabled hearings in which one or more participants appear before the court using a live video or audio link, or by a wholly video/audio hearing where there is no physical courtroom and all participants take part in the hearing using telephone or video conferencing facilities.

2. Provisions are also made within the Act to enable the public to see and hear proceedings which are held fully by video link or fully by audio link. This enables criminal, family and civil courts and tribunals to make directions to live stream a hearing which is taking place in this manner.

3. There are existing restrictions on photography and sound recording in physical courts. (Section 41 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925 provides prohibitions on photography in courts. The Contempt of Court Act 1981 prohibits the making of unauthorised sound recordings.) These offences were created to protect participants in court proceedings, but long before the concept of a virtual hearing was thought possible. Provisions in the Act therefore create similar offences to protect participants and prohibit recording or transmitting live-streamed proceedings, photography and sound recordings in the context of virtual hearings and live-links.

4. The Act provides for restrictions to be imposed on individuals who are potentially infectious and that the decision to impose such restrictions can be appealed to magistrates’ court. The Act therefore ensures that such hearings should be conducted fully by video link, unless the court directs otherwise, given the person appealing the decision would be subject to restrictions, and there is the risk of passing on the infection if they were to travel to court.

Although these specific provisions will, I hope, have a limited shelf life, they are having the effect that, like it or not, judges, legal practitioners and other court and tribunal users are being forced to use these new technologies.

There have been sporadic reports in the professional legal press and elsewhere that, actually, many really like the new ways of doing business and are surprised how well they work. Others, particularly where the technology does not work as it should, are less enthusiastic.

But the champions of reform among the judiciary and policymakers clearly see these currently emergency procedures as a really valuable practical testbed and the precursor to significantly even more substantial reform in the years ahead.

The Act can be found at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2020/7/contents/enacted

A useful report on these matters from Susan Acland-Hood, who is leading the Courts and Tribunals reform programme, was published on 30 April 2020 and is available at https://insidehmcts.blog.gov.uk/2020/04/30/using-remote-hearings-to-maintain-justice-during-the-coronavirus-pandemic/

See international developments at the website: https://remotecourts.org/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Changing the Court and Tribunal estate – revised principles 2019

leave a comment »

Introduction

The court and tribunal estate has changed significantly since 2010. In making its changes, the Ministry of Justice applied a number of key principles: maintaining access to justice, delivering value for money, and ensuring operational efficiency. Savings achieved are being used to finance reform of the Courts and Tribunals service. The reform programme will change the ways court and tribunal services are delivered. In particular, improved technology will be designed to enable people to access justice in simpler, easier and swifter ways. Provision for hearings in courtrooms will remain essential for the delivery of justice, but fewer interactions with the court and tribunals system are likely to happen in a courtroom.

Nonetheless, court closures are controversial. Many involve much-loved local historic buildings. Many complain about the time needed to get to an alternative court/tribunal building if an existing venue is shut. In 2018, the Ministry of Justice launched a consultation on the principles in should adopt in relation to any further closures it might argue are necessary. In ‘Fit for the Future: Transforming the Court and Tribunal Estate’, published in May 2019, the Government set out its response to this consultation.

The Government has stated “We need to consider further court closures in the context of our modernisation approach, which will ensure that we provide fair and proportionate access to justice. We expect an increase in the number of people using remote access to the courts which will reduce the use of court and tribunal buildings in the future. We make a commitment that we will not act on that assumption by proposing to close courts unless we have sound evidence that the reforms are actually reducing the use of those buildings.”

Travel time

The issue that worried respondents most was how the time of travel to and from court was being assessed. The Ministry had proposed that the benchmark should be an ability to get there and return home within a day. Respondents argued this was too vague. The Ministry of Justice has responded: “ We have therefore enhanced our principles to make it clear that we expect journeys to court to be reasonable, and set out that for the overwhelming majority of users a reasonable journey would be one that allowed them to leave home no earlier than 7.30am, attend their hearing, and return home by 7.30pm the same day, and by public transport where necessary. We have also set out in much greater detail how we will measure this, what other factors we will consider – for example, the circumstances of users including those that are vulnerable, and the mitigations we can apply when users have difficulty attending court.”

Court/tribunal buildings design

While people were broadly positive about proposals regarding the design of court and tribunal buildings, there was a clear message that the security of those who use and work in our courts and tribunals needs to be paramount, along with ensuring suitable facilities for vulnerable users. The Court and Tribunal Design Guide (published at www.gov.uk/government/publications/court-and-tribunal-design-guide) provides a flexible room design which includes enhanced security standards and provides for the needs of vulnerable victims and witnesses.

Digital support officers

Digital Support Officers will support the introduction and longer-term support for digital services in local courts, as well as support which will assist users who do not wish or are unable to access online services. This development was broadly welcomed. There were concerns regarding the resourcing of these services. The Ministry has stated that it “will ensure that the right number of staff support these activities.”

Future closures

The Ministry expects that increased use of digital services will mean that fewer court and tribunals hearings will be needed in a traditional courtroom setting, and therefore fewer buildings will be needed. However, “we are committed to having clear evidence that these reductions are happening before we decide to close any further sites.”

Revised estates principles

“• Everyone who needs to access the court and tribunal estate should be able to do so. Journey times to court should be reasonable and take into account the different needs and circumstances of those using the courts. Mitigations are available for those who experience difficulty attending court.

  • We want to make sure that our buildings are in the best condition possible for those that use them and that they can be maintained at a reasonable cost to the taxpayer.
  • We will focus on the provision of multijurisdictional centres which are able to provide flexible access for the people who use our courts and tribunals. We will harness the power of technology to offer enhanced access and greater flexibility.”

Comment

Revised statements of principle will not prevent future controversy. Indeed, at the end of October 2019, the Justice Select Committee issued a very critical report on the whole court reform programme in general and the court closure programme in particular. There have been many critical comments in the professional legal press.

My own view is that the court/tribunal reform programme will, in time, be an improvement on the present system. However as all those who come into contact with courts and tribunals will have to adapt to the new system, there will be nervousness ahead of proposed changes that have not yet been implemented.

The item is adapted from https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/fit-for-the-future-transforming-the-court-and-tribunal-estate which sets out both the original consultation paper and the Government’s response.

The Justice Committee critique is at https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201920/cmselect/cmjust/190/19003.htm

Justice in Wales – a developing picture

leave a comment »

Until relative recently it was possible to state that, for all practical purposes, the justice system in Wales was the same as the justice system in England.

Since devolution began, following enactment of the Government of Wales Act 2006, this statement needs qualification. Following the passing of the Wales Act 2017, the pace of change has quickened.

Two major initiatives are in progress. First, an Independent Expert Advisory Committee has been looking at the operation of Justice in Wales. Second, the former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Thomas, has been commissioned by the Welsh Government, to undertake a review of justice arrangements in Wales.

Lord Thomas’s review is expected in Autumn 2019. This note reports on the first report from the Independent Expert Advisory Committee.

The Committee’s terms of reference are to:

  • review the operation of the justice system in Wales on an ongoing, periodic basis.
  • make recommendations that ensure that the justice system in Wales keeps pace with both Assembly and Parliamentary law making within the single jurisdiction.
  • monitor the effectiveness of administrative arrangements on justice in Wales and make recommendations to deliver efficient and effective justice services across the devolution boundary, building on examples of good practice and co-operation.

The report states:

The Committee is considering the effects of laws passed by the National Assembly for Wales and the UK Parliament on the operation of the justice system within the single legal jurisdiction in England and Wales and is working strategically to identify key challenges in the justice landscape in Wales, how they can be overcome and wider opportunities for better administration of justice.

These challenges and opportunities cover all areas of the single legal jurisdiction, including criminal justice arrangements; courts and tribunals; prisons and probation; legal practice and the judiciary.

The Committee is also monitoring any issues relating to the relationship between reserved and devolved tribunals.

The Committee is also considering the wider implications of policy developments in UK government on the operation of justice in Wales, in order to recommend sustainable long-term solutions that would improve delivery. This work provides opportunity for a structured approach to tackling challenges identified in this first report on the operation of justice in Wales.

The report also states:

The key issues the Committee are currently focusing on are divergence in laws and accessibility of Welsh laws. The main priorities are to ensure that the impacts on the justice system of diverging laws and legislation are properly identified, accessibility of Welsh laws is improved and that there is continually improving collaboration between the MoJ and Welsh Government officials.

This is therefore work in progress, the outcomes from which are not yet clear. But what is clear that over coming years the justice system in Wales will increasinly diverge from that in England – an issue on which lawyers both in England and Wales will need to take note.

The first report of the Independent Expert Advisory Committee is at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/justice-in-wales-first-report-of-the-independent-advisory-committee-on-justice-in-wales

 

Written by lwtmp

September 20, 2019 at 9:51 am

Re-thinking legal services regulation

leave a comment »

I have reposted this excellent blog by Stephen Mayson, who is undertaking very important work on the need to further reform the regulatory structures for the legal professions.

StephenMayson

My interim report for the Independent Review of Legal Services Regulation in England & Wales is published today (available here).  This post is extracted from it.

While the reforms of the Legal Services Act 2007 have been mainly beneficial overall, that legislation might best be characterised as an incomplete step towards restructuring legal services regulation.

For reasons that are understandable, it did not fully follow through on some key elements of the regulatory structure.  These include: review and reform of the reserved legal activities (those few activities that must be provided by lawyers); the known regulatory gap (as a consequence of which the non-reserved activities of lawyers are regulated, but those of non-lawyers can legally be provided but cannot be regulated – to the potential detriment of consumers); and the separation of regulation from professional representative interests.

This lack of follow-through has led to increasing challenges to the integrity…

View original post 1,603 more words

Written by lwtmp

September 19, 2019 at 11:19 am