From the PoV of the Bar its faith in the BSB was severely dented by its EDI proposals which contradicted and seemingly failed to understand the duty of a barrister to act in the best interests of their client whilst not discriminating unlawfully.
I wonder if this fed into the adverse assessment of the BSB’s leadership.
1. What I fear I have detected with so many supposedly impartial and independent supervisory entities is an element of empire building which can and often does lead to a gratuitously dismissive “take” on the other long established entity so as to justify increases in staffing and lining up their tanks on its lawn.
2. I remember vividly when David Clementi came to address the Law Society’s Council on his report.
At the time I was both a Council member and a member of its Legal Affairs and Policy Board which attempted to achieve very much what it said on the tin.
Rarely backward in coming forward mine was the first question from the floor. My question: did he still see a future role for the Society’s “honest broker” role (when intervening over proposed changes to the law and procedure or seeking reforms)?
His reply (more or less verbatim):” I believe it would be a pity-a very great pity- should that aspect of its activities should not emerge intact.”
I wonder-very much- how much of that sentiment is still surviving to this day?
I have always maintained that the Society is far from merely a partisan quasi-union for its members and through its Council and its officers and a representative rather than a mere delegate. We should never permit that remit to become just so many empty words.
I am sure most of us would agree with you concluding 'comment'. OK Joshua, so have you any thoughts as to what next, eg with my regulatory body, the Solicitors Regulation Authority?
What's needed is a review by the Ministry of Justice leading to fresh legislation. But that's obviously a low priority at the moment. In the meantime, let's hope that good people are appointed to the key posts. I'm not very confident of that either.
In the meantime it would be good if someone could teach the SRA in-house investigators some basic rules of natural justice, starting with a willingness to consider all relevant evidence and to countenance basic forms of mediation to seek to resolve issues; and then for investigators to seek in-house legal advice (much as is the case with CPS and the police). If basic procedures like that were approved for investigators I am sure substantial SRA expenditure could be saved
From the PoV of the Bar its faith in the BSB was severely dented by its EDI proposals which contradicted and seemingly failed to understand the duty of a barrister to act in the best interests of their client whilst not discriminating unlawfully.
I wonder if this fed into the adverse assessment of the BSB’s leadership.
Two points occur:
1. What I fear I have detected with so many supposedly impartial and independent supervisory entities is an element of empire building which can and often does lead to a gratuitously dismissive “take” on the other long established entity so as to justify increases in staffing and lining up their tanks on its lawn.
2. I remember vividly when David Clementi came to address the Law Society’s Council on his report.
At the time I was both a Council member and a member of its Legal Affairs and Policy Board which attempted to achieve very much what it said on the tin.
Rarely backward in coming forward mine was the first question from the floor. My question: did he still see a future role for the Society’s “honest broker” role (when intervening over proposed changes to the law and procedure or seeking reforms)?
His reply (more or less verbatim):” I believe it would be a pity-a very great pity- should that aspect of its activities should not emerge intact.”
I wonder-very much- how much of that sentiment is still surviving to this day?
I have always maintained that the Society is far from merely a partisan quasi-union for its members and through its Council and its officers and a representative rather than a mere delegate. We should never permit that remit to become just so many empty words.
I am sure most of us would agree with you concluding 'comment'. OK Joshua, so have you any thoughts as to what next, eg with my regulatory body, the Solicitors Regulation Authority?
What's needed is a review by the Ministry of Justice leading to fresh legislation. But that's obviously a low priority at the moment. In the meantime, let's hope that good people are appointed to the key posts. I'm not very confident of that either.
In the meantime it would be good if someone could teach the SRA in-house investigators some basic rules of natural justice, starting with a willingness to consider all relevant evidence and to countenance basic forms of mediation to seek to resolve issues; and then for investigators to seek in-house legal advice (much as is the case with CPS and the police). If basic procedures like that were approved for investigators I am sure substantial SRA expenditure could be saved