Archive for May, 2011

Britain is right to honour this champion of the rule of law

Lawyers and non-lawyers who find law interesting  will need no introduction to Lord Bingham.

[Pic credit: The Guardian]

Peter Oborne, writing in The Telegraph, has a fine piece on Lord Bingham’s considerable influence in our society through his work as Lord Chief Justice and law lord and argues well the point that had it not been for the judiciary under Labour over the last thirteen years (and now under the Coalition) the political elite may have gone – and may now go – far further in eroding our liberties to suit the convenience of their rule by law.

I quote from Peter Oborne’s article: “The emergence of this new elite has done terrible damage to the reputation of Britain as a decent, law-abiding and tolerant country. This damage would have been far greater but for the integrity and independence of the British judiciary. That is why, from a decade marked by its greedy bankers, venal politicians, compromised spymasters and failed generals, Lord Bingham will be remembered as the most admirable and virtuous figure of his time.”

Today, Lord Neuberger MR published his report into Injunctions – the latest act in a play being played out between the competing interests of reasonable privacy and the commercial needs of some sections of the mainstream media.    It is an interesting report and I spent much of the latter part of the morning reading through the 112 pages carefully.

Lord Judge, Lord Chief Justice, welcoming the report said:

“No one, and in particular no judge, doubts that the open administration of justice is a long-standing, treasured principle of our legal system.

“Before 2000 there was in England and Wales no general right to privacy and therefore no right to an injunction to protect or enforce any general claim to privacy. The development of privacy rights since 2000 was an inevitable consequence of the enactment of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the incorporation of the European Court Convention of Human Rights, and in particular article 8 of the Convention, into domestic law. That consequence was indeed clearly explained to Parliament before the Human Rights Act was enacted.”

“Contrary to some commentary unelected judges in this country did not create privacy rights. They were created by Parliament.Now that they have been created judges in this country cannot ignore or dispense with them: they must apply the law relating to privacy matters as created by Parliament, including those relating to the enforcement of privacy rights by injunctive relief, balancing them with the rights underlined in Article 10 and the principle of freedom of expression. The relationship between Parliament and the courts has, for generations, been predicated on mutual understanding and respect.Judges have never asserted, and they are not now asserting, any authority or jurisdiction over Parliamentary proceedings or debate, which are exclusively matters for Parliament.”

Adam Wagner of the UK Human Rights blog was probably first out of the starting blocks with his analysis: Turns out there weren’t that many super-injunctions after all.

David Allen Green, solicitor, and author of The Jack of Kent blog,  tweeted soon after with his observation that Paragraph 6.33 was significant.

I extract 6.33 for your convenience.  The preceding paragraphs of the report make fascinating reading.

It therefore appears to be an open question whether, and to what extent, the common law protects media reporting of Parliamentary proceedings where such reporting appears to breach the terms of a court order and is not covered by the protection provided by the 1840 Act. What is clear is that unfettered reporting of Parliamentary proceedings (in apparent breach of court orders) has not been established as a clear right.

And @Loveandgarbage brings an element of very real realpolitik to the media frenzied discussion by noting, in the *Fred “The Shred/Bed injunction saga* that yesterday’s use of parliamentary privilege in the House of Lords  by Lord Soneham on behalf of his Liberal Democrat colleague, Lord Oakeshott was….

“…. no great triumph for Parliamentarians over the courts in a battle over the meaning of public interest. The battle over the meaning of public interest was not waged in the court.”

The Ken Clarke saga was well rehearsed / butchered on the Court of Twitter – and, less forgiveably so, by Mr Miliband at PMQs yesterday when he called for Ken Clarke’s head.  Salome Miliband may well come to regret his eagerness.  There is no doubt that Ken Clarke should have been more careful in his use of language on this highly sensitive issue – but he has apologised (an apology which may not be accepted by all) and he wasn’t wildly off-beam in terms of the highly complex use of ‘discounts’ for pleading guilty nor in his reasoning for their use in ensuring that justice is done.

Many have written on the topic – but this piece by Neil Monnery gives a very good parodic analysis of the very real dangers of kneejerkitis and the *Court of Social Meedja*…

Ken Clarke – a trial by modern social media

Barrister, Felicity Gerry… brings some good analysis to the issue… writing in Legal Week: Understanding rape sentencing: Ken Clarke and the ‘guilty plea’ debate

Read Full Post »

Social Care Reform – Essential Change is needed to Protect Service Users
BY Eddie Jones, Head of Clinical Negligence, JMW
I receive many enquiries from clients who are concerned with the social care they or a family member receive. Many of these enquiries fail to fulfil the criteria of medical negligence as there is an absence of an injury sustained, but they do highlight how distressing it must be for service users and their families and carers when the support required is denied or withdrawn.
The proposed changes to social care law as set out by the Law Commission this week, should be welcomed. In the future it should be clearer to service users, carers and solicitors what social care provision people are entitled to, untangling the ‘mess’ current ad-hoc legislation creates.

Currently, the service user’s spouse or family is often left to bear the burden of care or to provide private care which is extremely expensive.

The Law Commission is trying to do something about it
The Law Commission published ‘Adult Social Care’ on 11 May which has revealed major inefficiencies in the current system.
The current system, developed over the last 60 years from the National Assistance Act 1948, contains outdated references to “dumb and crippled persons” who were to be cared for on a ‘welfare state’ basis. The modern practice of independent living and individual choice has left this system defunct.
The Law Commission has made recommendations for a ‘single, clear, modern statute and code of practice that would pave the way for a coherent social care system’. The laws would help to protect individuals by stipulating “clear and individually enforceable rights” relating to eligibility and provision of services that could be taken through the courts if violated.

Let’s hope the recommendations are taken up
The reforms are based on the assumption that the service user is the best judge of their own well-being and whilst this principle already underpins social care practice making this law would allow for a firmer legal footing for individuals to dispute the standard of care they receive.

The reforms would also help to protect ‘at risk’ adults as councils will now have a legal duty to investigate suspected instances of adult abuse when an adult is at ‘risk of harm’ and NHS trusts and police will be required to appoint representatives to adult safeguarding boards.
All in all the reforms set out in this proposal seem to help protect service users from abuse and neglect by providing a clear legal framework. And that (ignoring the slight potential hurdles of time, resources, implementing change etc!) can only be a good thing! I hope the government responds positively to the recommendations and recognises that these changes are clearly overdue.
The challenge ahead
The next challenge these proposed changes will face is the issue of funding.  How does the government pay for improved social care, especially if a revised model of care may prove to be more expensive in this age of austerity?
The Commission on Funding of Care and Support, an independent body responsible for the review of the funding system for care and support in England, has been looking at a range of solutions and is due to release its recommendations in July 2011.
Care doesn’t come cheap but in my eyes it is one of the cornerstones to a developed society and one where cuts could severely reduce citizen’s quality of life.
You just can’t cut corners when it comes to care and wellbeing.

Read Full Post »

For some years now I have kept to the principle that I do not work on the anniversary of my arrival on Earth.  As blogging, for me, is not work… I am able to blog.

The UK Supreme Court proceedings are now being broadcast on Sky.   Although the first transmission involved a complex matter of Revenue law, I watched for about an hour yesterday morning and thoroughly enjoyed it.  This, apart from being a wonderful tool for teaching, is a very welcome development and I have no doubt that some of the more important cases on human rights, the constitution, civil liberties, and other matters of wide and general public interest will attract a wide viewership.  Worth a look

In an excellent piece of blogging @lawandgarbage considers the issue of superinjunctions…

Imogen no possessions I wonder if you can No need for greed…

In recent weeks a former reality television contestant, Imogen Thomas, has done the rounds of television studios and newspapers bemoaning the fact that she had been gagged by the courts from selling her story.

One of her tear-filled television appearances can be viewed here……


David Allen Green puts the boot into Wikileaks with an excellent analysis of what Wikileaks should have done to gag their employees: WikiLeaks £12m Legal Gag: a legal analysis

And.. if you need more on this… The Big Brother star, the footballer, privacy law and the judiciary from Legal Week

Many law bloggers have commented on the privacy and superinjunction issue.  I did so with a number of propositions the other day.  The Guardian reports: Privacy law could help judges decide over gagging orders, says Ken Clarke noting…“Justice secretary says he will consider legislation, but admits there may be quicker, less controversial ways of tackling issue.”

Proposals for a reformed House of Lords published

For my part, I tend to agree with much in The Times editorial today that reform of the House of Lords – an ongoing saga since 1911 – should not be a high priority of government time at a time when the economy and cuts are far more deserving of the focus of our MPs and government. The recent AV fiasco should be a pointer to the lack of public interest in constitutional reform at this time – and even, generally?  However, I share Carl Gardner’s  astonishment, declared on twitter earlier today,  that the reform proposals published today in readiness, hopefully, of being kicked into the long grass, contain a provision for 12 of 26 ‘unelected’ bishops to remain in the Lords.  Why?   Religion is a matter of personal choice – and there are many gods out there for people to believe in.  But should any religion, in the 21st century, be part of the governance of our country? Obviously, I think not.

I remember enjoying the biting satire The Ruling Class with Peter O’Toole many years ago.  Plus ca change?

Breaking the myth of the barristers’ dinner

A few days ago Alex Aldridge wrote an article on the dining ritual: Barristers’ dinners – a bit of fun or one upper-class indulgence too many?

I read the article in The Guardian  with some amusement – wondering how long it would be before the backlash came… and come it did.

Fiona Fulton is the head of education and training at the Honourable Society of the Inner Temple.  She had much to say…rightly.  I’ll quote from her summation:

“Instead of perpetuating a simplistic stereotype, we want to break down myths and make sure that prospective barristers receive accurate information about the inns and the profession.

We wish the same could have been said for the earlier article.

The Inns of court are many things but “Disneyland” for the privileged they are not.”

Ouch.  Worth reading.

Legal Walk raises £500,000 for advice centres

The Law Society Gazette reports:  Legal workers came out in force across the country yesterday for this year’s Legal Walk. More than 5,000 people joined in the event on Monday evening to raise £500,000 for free legal advice centres in London. The Gazette acted as media partner.

Good stuff….

Right.. back to my Rioja….

Read Full Post »

The philosophical foundation and gold standard for  any modern progressive and democratic society in the 21st Century, it can be argued reasonably, involves a trinity of respect for (1) Human rights,  (2) A free Press and freedom of speech and (3) The Rule of Law.

Ironically, it is this very trinity which has led to one of the more complex legalo-philosophic ‘hard cases’ of recent times. For the Rule of Law to be respected, consensus and consent is required.  A poor law which is disregarded or unenforceable is, as many have observed, merely words on paper and serves to undermine respect for law – law being, arguably, the basis upon which we can all live our lives without fear of oppression from State or others.

If you accept what is a very basic formulation above as a proposition for debate: The complex rights of privacy of the individual and freedom of speech (which includes the free Press) immediately come into the scope of The Rule of Law and getting it wrong will, ultimately, lead to a lack of  consensus and undermine respect for The Rule of Law.

Some years ago, we did not not have a particularly effective privacy law. The European Convention created two rights:  The Right to Privacy (Article 8) (Eight) and The Right of Freedom of Speech (Article 10)  Both of these rights are enshrined in our law by virtue of The Human Rights Act.   The judges have to balance these two interests.  Government has been reluctant, for whatever reason, to put privacy law on a statutory footing.  It is, therefore, unreasonable to criticise the judges for doing what they are required by law to do – balance the issues of privacy and freedom of expression under, to keep it simple for the purposes of this piece, the public interest test.  It is not, of course, unreasonable to criticise judges for doing this task badly.  There is an appeals procedure to correct poor application of the law by the judges.

By gleefully revealing the identity of those who seek injunctions (or superinjunctions) on twitter and other social media (which they do by ReTweeting?);  people in England & Wales are, in effect, saying they have no respect for The Rule of Law of our nation.  I understand why they do it.  There are many reasons – mischief making, tin foil hat thinking, genuine concern for the rights of freedom of speech, irritation that these injunctions are, apparently, only available to the very rich (men, it would seem, in the main) and other subtle variations on these themes – possibly including nihilism and poorly thought out anarchy.

I know that it is old fashioned – but we do have a (flawed) mechanism for voicing dissent: Protest – campaigning, lobbying Parliament and, ultimately, rejecting a government at the ballot box.

Hugh Tomlinson QC and others have written serious analyses of the issue.  Hugh Tomlinson  QC has an excellent and very readable analysis in The Guardian.

How to create a privacy law

The Guardian: If we want a law of privacy, what should happen next? There are four possibilities

Again, being old fashioned, I don’t subscribe to  “The might of tweeters is right” or ‘The 50 million flies eat shit so it must be good”  doctrines – but if Parliament doesn’t have the courage to address this very complex – and very important – balancing of rights,  the judges will continue to do it, because that is the law of our country as it stands,  and judges apply the laws of our country.

Why don’t I subscribe to the “Might of tweeters is right and 50 million flies doctrines?  I give you a very simple, but deliberately extreme, example:  What if the majority of tweeters thought it was a great idea to bring in “an eye for an eye law” and pour acid into the eyes of a criminal to punish him for his crime?”

I prefer, as do most/many, the imperfections of our Rule of Law.  It is, however, not up to the judges to make sure The Rule of Law is good (they merely apply the law and fill in the gaps where there is no law) – that is up to us, through our Parliament.

I make no pretence that this is anything other than a short foreward to a very complex issue to put some of the key points for debate.

AND.. I just could not resist this tweet from the online editor at The Times…. I must credit him for pointing it out!

Read Full Post »

Guten Abend meine Damen und  Herren.. und… even…  Juristen… . aber die Zeit  ist Geld … so I will keep this brief.

It is with regret that I cannot join the distinguished panel of pundits, mavens, prognosticators und blawgers at ze #UKLAWBLOGS Convention at The Law Society on 19th May 2011.  I am Dr Erasmus Strangelove (no relation), as some of you know, Director of Psyops, Strategy and Education at niche boutique firm Muttley Dastardly LLP in The City.  Our motto is ‘Strength & Profits’.  Each day I have to make complex and even minor calculations as to how I allocate the 20 hours of billable time – available daily  to the modern day professional lawyer –  to the future of The Partners…. of which I am one.  More often than not this consists of monitoring a bank of television screens in my Psyops room in the basement,  where we are able to monitor (and direct) the productivity of our various departments or…as we call them at Muttley Dastardly LLP… ‘revenue generation units’.  We like a neo-post-modern joke at our firm… or, at least, The Partners do.

I came to ze conclusion that while blawging und flawging is a most worthy and profitable activity for other lawyers to engage in… the more so if these same people can be encouraged to waste industrial amounts of time on twitter und Linked-In – the profit comes from taking advantage of the lack of productivity from our competitors and not in engaging in these activities ourselves. This explains why I am allocating time to a specially televised broadcast, delivered to you by courier using a USB device to connect with a PC at an internet cafe ‘somewhere in Abbottabad”, rather than expend Zeit  ist Geld by attending in persona.

It distressed me to hear this morning  that ‘persons unknown’ sought to obtain an injunction from Mr Justice Spank-Farquhar ,  a superinjunction contra mundum and against twitter and Facebook,  to restrain publication of my address to you urbi et orbi.  Fortunately, our recently knighted managing partner, Sir Matt Muttley, was able to use his considerable expertise to brief counsel to turn over this injunction on  the sole ground that all matters, save those which The Partners of Muttley Dastardly LLP do not wish to be made public, are in the public interest.

Spank-Farquhar J said “I have known Sir Matt Muttley for many years.  We were in The Bullingdon together and what happened at that club in London we trashed all those years ago, stays at that club we trashed in London all those years ago. When Sir Matt Muttley tells me now, through counsel, that he believes something should be made public, I can only reach one conclusion: It is in his interest, and therefore in the interest of the public and the ‘public interest’,  for it to be made public. I therefore order contra mundum spiritus et fillii et Spiritus Sancti exorciso te Romanum that this notice be published everywhere – with a bit of added SupraMandamus just to chill the breast of the tardy.  Make it so Mr  Sulu and let these words boldly go.”

I am much encouraged that a renegade blawger in Kent has addressed the real issue of law blogging.  I refer to Mr John Bolch of Family Lore and his brief, but nevertheless precise and excellent, treatise on the subject:

Has blawging become ‘establishment’?

Lord Bolchdidit goes to the very foundation of the rot which may pervade, pervert and pollute blogging – and which we may sleep walk into – if we are not very careful.  I quote:

“When I began writing this blog, there weren’t that many other legal blogs around. Law blogging was still a relatively new phenomenon, not taken seriously by the legal establishment. OK, there were certainly some serious legal blogs about (IPKat comes to mind), but there was definitely a higher proportion of more personal law blogs, with their own unique styles, such as Charon QC and the much-missed Geeklawyer.

Gradually, however, the establishment began to realise the potential of blogging to promote businesses and further careers. More and more blawgs began to appear, from the tedious “here’s a topical legal story – if you have the same problem, we can help” type, to the rather more subtle providers of detailed legal analysis, thereby demonstrating serious expertise.

Don’t get me wrong, though. I’m not saying that law blogs should be restricted to one type. One of the beauties of blogging is that there are (virtually) no rules as to what format a blog should take. The problem, however, is that the establishment thinks it knows best and inevitably tries to take over the medium. Before we know where we are, we have blawging mavens making their pronouncements to the minions from on high, telling us all the right and the wrong ways to do things.

Worse than that, the establishment likes order. Blawgs have to be listed and rated. Now, I have nothing against personal opinions, but if the rating is by committee or vote, then you can count me out. You can also count me out of any annual award ceremony for the best blawgs by category, even if the winners are announced in reverse order.

I do recommend that you read the rest of it.

I concur.  If I have any advice at all for law bloggers… it is this.. you have a duty to stir.  My colleague and consultant to Muttley Dastardly LLP, Charon QC,  will be attending #UKLAWBLOGS if he is sober – and he may well appear roaring on arrival in any event.  I suspect he will be putting his “Doctrine of The Duty To Stir’ (Self Aggrandisers Monthly April 2011)  before you for your delectation and delight.  He may listen to reason – and he does a most passable imitation of appearing to do  so and be affable at the same time – but he certainly does not feel it necessary to abide by reason.

That is all.  May the law have mercy upon your soul and keep you safe from flawgers and establishment blawgers. Read their marketing schtik instead.

Dr Erasmus Strangelove

Strength & Profits

Read Full Post »

Bonsoir … Bienvenue aux  The Staterooms .. Je suis  Chef Charon …. avec des étoiles (dix-huit) à mon nom … histoire vraie …

Tonight, after eating boeuf bourguignon to death about a year ago ( I do eat things to death and cannot face them for months after), I shall be dining in splendid isolation, wearing a Panama hat,  at my dining room table eating Boeuf Buggerorf a la Charon.   

For those of  you who would like to eat Boeuf Buggerorf a la Charonhere is a recipe wot I knocked up….

Chef Charon présente Boeuf Bourguignon

I always enjoy writing the Rive Gauche posts on Fridays / Saturdays… tales of the law from the left field.   Today I have a few oddities and a few interesting sane posts to share with you…

First up – a  remarkable story of a US attorney, an associate, who appears to be suing most of the US law  blogosphere who took him to task for his antics.  I know many of the people in the claim through blogging – they are leading US law bloggers – and I have had the pleasure of podcasting with several of them.  It really is an astonishing story.

How Young Lawyers Should NOT Conduct Themselves Online

Do…please.. take time to read this.  It will bring a smile to your face… of this, I am sure.

Courtesy of Mark Bennett, you can read the complaint for yourself of what is already being referred to as Rakofsky v. The Internet.

RollonFriday.com continues to provide amusing examples of law firm behaviour… this is wonderful nonsense…

Exclusive: Top Scots firm launches “league table” of associates’ hours

Morton Fraser is taking the ground breaking step of abolishing annual fee targets. And getting associates to compete with their colleagues instead…

The Scots firm has come up with a new initiative called “peer benchmarking“. The idea is that a league table is created for each level of fee earner, and the aim of the game is to get to the top of it. Rather like the Scottish Premier football league, with possibly more talent but the same number of pitch-side scuffles…….

Read more…

On a rather more sensible note… Wikileaks – The Musical is playing to thousands and may run and run…

David Allen Green, writing in the New Statesman has an excellent SCOOP!

The £12m question: how WikiLeaks gags its own staff

The follow up to this in The Guardian is also worth reading.. from the guy who would not be gagged:  WikiLeaks, get out of the gagging game

I refused to sign Julian Assange’s confidentiality agreement because it would have been not just ironic, but dangerous

James Ball

And not to be outdone.. Alex Novarese, editor of Legal Week, appears to be revising the libel laws of England & Wales single handed with two excellent articles – neither of which are behind a paywall: Libel reform – a hack’s proposal.  I loved the title of the post with the picture of Alan Rusbridger, editor of The Guardian, beside it.  Class!

And also this detailed piece: The death of libel – is the Defamation Bill the beginning of the end for libel lawyers?

Always a pleasure to see new law blogs arriving: Carrefax | a few more legal transmissions to add to the pile and this new Family Law blog – Confessions of a Family Lawyer

AND.. I do like this: Clerkingwell – Observations from a barristers’ clerk. 

While I read the Supreme Court judgment, I got kidnapped by a bottle of Rioja and was forced to watch The Apprentice earlier in the week.  Thankfully Obiter J has done the business with a very good analysis on…

Supreme Court – Compensation for miscarriage of justice cases

I did enjoy this piece on the Magic Circle from Ashley Connick: The Magic Circle Myth? How some applicants miscategorise firms they’re applying to

AND.. this prompted me to cruise ( I don’t surf.. I cruise…) over to Anonymous Assistant: Feudal Bonds

and thence to Magic Circle Minx: What Can Lord Sugar’s Tomato Task Teach Lawyers?

The new Babybarista book is out!.

Tim Kevan is a good friend of mine.  I enjoy reading his regular posts in The Guardian, repeated on his blog.  I enjoyed the first book…and I am thoroughly enjoying the second.   I shall write a review shortly… but I can tell you, three quarters of the way through,  that Babybarista is deliciously venal.  Dr Erasmus Strangelove, director of Psyops, Strategy and Education at Muttley Dastardly LLP is keeping a very close watch….. in fact… it would not surprise me if he is hacking into Babybarista’s mobile as I write.

Available, as they say… at all good bookshops.. but why not buy it from a really good bookshop? Wildy’s – they deliver and are very efficient!  I know this from many personal experiences.

And, of course, no week would be complete without a bit of Max Mosley.  Carl Gardner, author of The Head of Legal blog, has covered the case in detail.  Mosley v UK : “Max Mosley has lost his case in the European Court of Human Rights, in which he claimed that the UK breached his right to respect for private life under article 8 of the ECHR by failing to impose a legal duty on the media to notify him in advance of a story that violated his privacy….”

I did enjoy the bit on BBC  Question Time last night when Max Mosley had finished speaking and Dimbleby said, without a flicker of a smile… “And now we go over to the man in the black shirt”.  Irony is not dead.

Non-lawyers may be baffled to discover that it is a requirement of The Bar that all barristers have to eat 12 dinners before they are allowed to practise law.  Some lawyers find it equally baffling.  (Picture source)

Alex Aldridge has the story behind this in The Guardian:  Barristers’ dinners – a bit of fun or one upper-class indulgence too many?

BUT This.. from Carrefax.. corrects a few (mis)conceptions… all good stuff…

Dinner at the Inns and rebellious bladders

“There are enough misery merchants pedalling doom and gloom about the Bar. Those thinking about entering the profession deserve an accurate and fair picture of it. That includes coverage of the Inns of Court. On this occasion, Alex’s article doesn’t meet that standard.”

Good article…. well worth a read.  Essential if you are think about a career at the Bar
Well.. there we are.. time waits for no man..and certainly not an Eighteen star chef… I have my Boeuf Buggerorf a la Charon  to perfect and  ‘plate’ and then…  I shall dine wearing a Panama hat…. watching the sun set over Chelsea… and there may be a few ducks I can wave at.  I shall be drinking burgundy.

Have a good weekend…

Read Full Post »

Lawcast 184: Jon-Paul McTavy founder of Solicitalawyer.co.uk

In a slight departure from my podcasts on the legal profession, where I interview lawyers,  I thought that it would be interesting to talk to the founder of an online directory for lawyers.  Marketing, a presence on Google and a good website are basic requirements for all law firms. While the large City, leading commercial and regional full service law firms have budget for traditional marketing – the smaller firms and sole practitioners may not.

I asked Jon-Paul McTavy, founder of Solicitalawyer.co.uk to describe his directory:

Solicit A Lawyer is a large database of UK based lawyers and solicitors.  The site which started life as a standard database has been heavily modified to ensure I only offer the most up to date information on law firms.  Company owners can add, edit and delete information and are encouraged to do so.  When adding a new listing law firms can choose from a paid ‘premium’ listing or a free listing.  The paid listing is £10 for the year and will give the company profile more advertising on the website along with use of a e-mail contact form and a clickable link to their own website.  Updating the information is a free process as it’s important to ensure correct and accurate information.  Many law firms take advantage and update their information to add in details on which areas of law they cover along with any additional information which they believe will benefit people visiting the site.   The site breaks down the UK into Cities and Towns to try and make it easier for users to find a local Lawyer / Solicitor.  Our top city is of  London which now lists over 1800 firms and is regularly updated by new listings or updated listings but we also cover the much smaller areas to ensure users will find their local law firm.  The long term goal for www.solicitalawyer.co.uk is to have all UK Law firms listed with up to date information.”

Listen to the podcast


And…thank you to Cassons For CounselJustgodirect.co.uk and  David Phillips & Partners Solicitors , Contact Law UK Solicitors

for sponsoring the podcast and the free student materials on Insite Law

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »