solo the spg journal - spg.uk.comspg.uk.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/solo_autumn-2014.pdf · solo...

solo THE

SP

G J

OU

RN

AL Autumn/Winter 2014

www.spg.uk.com

Lobbying lenders panels

How can LinkedIn boost your business?Looking ahead to 2015 SPG Annual Conference Birmingham

Get the low-down on cloud computing and hosted desktops

SBA Supporting SPG members and their families

Local GroupsVictims’ Law – a turning point?

SPG talks to Law Society President Andrew Caplen

Talking to the SRASPG goes internationalCan online technology generate new clients?

Immigration Appeals

2 Solo - Autumn/Winter 2014 www.spg.uk.com

No cashier employment costs – no o�ce space rental

Dedicated cashier – personal service

Legal accounting experts – that’s us

No overheads – just pay as you go

SRA compliance – we’ve got it covered

No sta� absence costs – we’re always inData in

the cloud – business continuity assured

Reporting – instant business intelligence

No admin distraction – you focus on fee earning

Cloud hosted software – no capital spend needed

In the past three years Quill Pinpoint clients

have increased profit costs by over 25%... how could you?

outsource your cashiering...

it’s a no brainer!

[email protected] 236 2910

Firstly, a huge welcome to all of you to the Autumn edition of SOLO, the SPG Journal. As we

move into the start of a new legal year, I hope that you will find the Journal useful in helping you to think about developing and growing your practice. I also hope you find it lightly entertaining in places and something to brighten your day.

I am already halfway through my term as Chairwoman of the Group, having taken over the reins of office in May 2014 from Rupert Scrase who worked extremely hard during his term to lay the foundations of the Group’s new identity as an independent stakeholder group. We are very grateful to him for his commitment and enthusiasm to the task.

It is my vision to continue to build upon those foundations and one of the first steps that the Group took at the beginning of my year of office was to commission some research conducted by Affinity PR into your views, as the members, of SPG – what you felt we were getting right, what you felt we were getting wrong and what you would like to see SPG doing on your behalf in the future. We are volunteers trying to do a good job in representing and supporting you all but we always need your help to know what is working and what is not and are committed to ensuring that SPG is always relevant to you at grassroots level. I would like to say a huge thank you to all of our members who participated in this research and can assure you that the insight that we gained from this is now informing the future progress of the Group.

In particular, we are currently working on the massive task of developing our image and are building a brand new website. In the not too distant future,

we will be announcing the exciting launch of our rebrand and website, so please watch this space!

In the meantime, we have added up-to-date information to our website including our Know-How section (http://www.spg.uk.com/knowhow/) which includes guidance on structuring your firm (which you can also read in this edition at page 39), SRA visits, continuity planning and a host of other practice management and regulatory issues. Please do remember to check the website regularly for up-to-date information on regulatory and practice management issues and please also consider joining our LinkedIn forum, to engage in the discussion and debate that takes place.

We are also keen to support new sole practitioners, of whom there are many. We are often contacted by new sole practitioners or those considering setting up as a sole practitioner and we have produced a guide to assist them http://www.spg.uk.com/knowhow/settingup/ (and can also be read at page 58 of this edition). If you know of anyone who may benefit from this, please do let them have details and encourage them to contact us.

We would like to know whether there is scope for growing an international

contingent of SPG and Nick Woolf has taken the lead on this. You can read more about this and how to get involved on page 20.

The demands and challenges of our profession remain significant. One of the frustrations that we hear most from members is the ongoing problem faced by conveyancing practitioners and the restrictions placed upon their ability to act for clients by lenders panels. As a conveyancer myself, I feel very strongly about this issue

and have set up an SPG Lobbying Group to specifically tackle it. If you would like to join the Lobbying Group and get involved with our activities, please contact our Co-ordinator, Hilary Underwood at [email protected]. You can read on page 38 about what we have been doing so far.

We all know that to stay ahead of the game and at the sharp end of our profession, we cannot afford to overlook the impact that technology and social media is having upon law firms and you can read about LinkedIn, cloud computing, hosted desktops and online marketing in this edition (pages 14, 18 and 24).

Another significant challenge for us as sole practitioners is the regulatory framework within which we all work and so we are pleased that our working relationship with the SRA continues to flourish with the hard work and dedication of our liaison sub-committee, led by David Leigh-Hunt. You can read about the issues that were discussed at the most recent meeting on page 32. Through regular communication and dialogue with the SRA, we believe that we can make a real difference to the way in which regulation affects us as sole practitioners. We are waiting, in particular, with baited breath for

FROM THE CHAIRWOMAN

www.spg.uk.com Solo - Autumn/Winter 2014 3

No cashier employment costs – no o�ce space rental

Dedicated cashier – personal service

Legal accounting experts – that’s us

No overheads – just pay as you go

SRA compliance – we’ve got it covered

No sta� absence costs – we’re always inData in

the cloud – business continuity assured

Reporting – instant business intelligence

No admin distraction – you focus on fee earning

Cloud hosted software – no capital spend needed

In the past three years Quill Pinpoint clients

have increased profit costs by over 25%... how could you?

outsource your cashiering...

it’s a no brainer!

[email protected] 236 2910


more news on the current review of whether the COLP/COFA framework is really required for small firms. The SRA are reviewing this as part of their continuing programme of Regulatory Reform and review of the way in which it regulates small firms.

As well as these regular meetings, we respond to all consultations that are relevant and impact upon sole practice but there is no substitute for our regulators hearing directly from our members on the issues that really matter. We will always try to alert you to current relevant consultations so that you can respond on an individual basis as well. You can read about our recent responses to the consultations on multi-disciplinary practices, the compensation arrangements review, accounting requirements and the minimum compulsory professional indemnity cover in this edition (pages 42 – 55).

Sole practitioners are still considered to be the real defenders of access to justice on the high streets of our towns and villages and SPG is offering its full support to the cause of criminal practitioners everywhere whose firms are still under threat by the ongoing determination of the government to reform criminal legal aid and we have responded to the recent Ministry of Justice consultation on crime duty contracts. It is so encouraging that Law Society President, Andrew Caplen, has taken access to justice as one of the key themes of his own term of office and he talks to us in this edition at page 9.

It’s always good to have something to look forward to and so we hope that you will all book into your diaries a weekend away next year from 8th – 10th May 2015, at the SPG Annual Conference which will be held at the Forest of Arden Marriott Hotel & Country Club in Birmingham,

where the focus will be on Business Growth (page 28) and where you will have the opportunity to be inspired by expert speakers and network with other sole practitioners. We will also be celebrating 20 years of SPG conferences in style with our Annual Gala Dinner. As a really keen gardener and lover of plants and flowers, I am absolutely delighted that we will be hosting this at the Birmingham Botanical Gardens.

We will also again be running a series of regional seminars during the coming months. Details of future seminars will be sent out to you by email and will aim to provide you with a cost efficient and convenient way of gaining expert help in developing your practices and your substantive legal knowledge.

We all know that nobody understands the challenge of being a sole practitioner like another sole practitioner and so we would encourage you not to wait until next May to connect with them. Please do get involved with your nearest local group and if there isn’t one close by, why not think about starting another one? Read about the local groups on page 35 and contact Lubna Shuja, our Local Groups Co-ordinator if you would like more information or help with setting up a new group.

The pressure upon sole practitioners is probably greater now than it has ever been and this of course impacts upon our families. You may not know of the support and assistance that is regularly given out by SBA, and we hope you will find our feature on their work on page 17 interesting and maybe of use either for yourself or someone that you know.

I am proud to Chair a group that represents such a diverse mix of talented and dedicated sole practitioners and if you have any particular concerns or requests that you

would like us to assist with, please feel free to contact either myself at [email protected] or Hilary at [email protected].

Of course SPG would not exist without the hard work and selfless commitment of our Executive Committee. As individuals, they are fiercely passionate about sole practice. As a team they are formidable. I would like to thank each and every one of them for making my task as Chairwoman such a pleasure.

I hope that you will enjoy reading some of the features in this edition, which I am so pleased include some very interesting contributions from some of our members. We want SOLO to reflect the things that matter to you, so please let Hilary have any ideas and articles which we can include in future editions.

Please also contact Hilary if you are not receiving our monthly email newsletters and would like to subscribe and also if you would prefer to receive your copy of SOLO only by email, rather than receiving a hard copy through the post.

I would also invite you to consider coming along to observe one of our Executive Committee meetings held in London on a quarterly basis. Again, please contact Hilary for details of our forthcoming meetings.

And finally....it only remains for me to say may the coming legal year be a season of growth, health and happiness for you and your firm.

Best wishes

kem


PASt ChAIRmAnRupert ScraseScrase Employment SolicitorsThe Coach House 52a Egerton RoadBristol, South GloucestershireBS7 8HLTel: 0117 985 [email protected]

Rupert is an SP in Bristol who specialises in employment law. He is married with 3 teenage children. Most weekends he is out on his bike in the beautiful countryside around Bristol which makes him a MAMIL – a middle aged man in lycra!

SOLICITOR SOLE PRACTITIONERS’ GROUPmeet Your Executive Committee 2014

ChAIRwomAnKem Masinbo-AmobiKMA SolicitorsSaracens House25 St Margaret’s GreenIpswichSuffolk IP4 2BNTel: 01473 [email protected]

Kem qualified as a solicitor in November 2002 under the tutelage of Mr Martin Mears (former President of the Law Society). Kem has over twelve years commercial experience gained in a variety of demanding and challenging environments. Kem’s employment history includes time spent at some of the most prestigious legal firms in Suffolk and Norfolk. A keen gardener, Kem has completed the RHS Level 2 Certificate in Horticulture and her other hobbies include reading, travelling and cooking in true “Nigella” fashion.

hon. SECREtARYClive SuttonClive Sutton Solicitor3 The Old Print Works85b High Street, LymingtonHants SO41 9ATel: 01590 [email protected]

Clive specialises in litigation and has been a sole practitioner in Lymington in Hampshire since leaving a partnership in 1998, covering most aspects of private and commercial work. His other interests are as Chairman of his local Amenity Society in Lymington and trustee of the New Forest Centre Museum in Lyndhurst. In the past he has served as Chairman of the local Citizens Advice Bureau and churchwarden and in the early 70s as a resident magistrate in the Seychelles. Clive has been actively engaged on behalf of SPG over the past 10 years. He was Chairman of the Group in 2003/2004 and has been Honorary Secretary since 2007. Clive feels that, with the benefit of loyal staff, sole practice has been the most rewarding part of his career and the sole practitioners group executive committee one of his most rewarding activities.

VICE ChAIRmAn Sukhjit AhluwaliaAvery EmersonGloucester House335 Green LaneIlford, Essex, IG3 9THTel: 020 8215 0884Email: [email protected]

Having worked in some of the most prestigious banking and consultancy organisation’s, Sukhjit opted to provide a more personal one to one service and believed that this could be best done through his own practice. He has been based in Goodmayes in Ilford since 2003. In his private life, Sukhjit likes to get involved in a number of charitable activities, working with organisations to assist people from all backgrounds and ages in reaching moral excellence either in their private life or in their professional capacity. Whilst he is quite a shy person, Sukhjit has been part of two documentaries exploring the changes that have taken place in the traditional arranged marriage process. His children are still young and take up a great deal of his time but when he does have time for himself, Sukhjit likes to sit, read a good book and watch the world go by.


LoCAL GRoUPS & CoUnCIL mEmBERLubna ShujaLegal Swan Solicitors1st Floor, 168 Hamstead RoadHandsworthBirmingham B20 2QRTel: 0121 551 [email protected]

Lubna qualified as a solicitor in 1992. She was a partner in a high street firm in West Yorkshire for many years and then started her own practice in Birmingham in 2007 undertaking mediation, family and civil litigation. Lubna became a CEDR accredited Mediator in 2005, and is dual qualified to conduct both Civil and Family mediations. She has done shuttle mediations (where parties prefer not to meet) and also time limited mediations (2-4 hours duration). Lubna is also involved with various regulators and she Chairs a number of Disciplinary/Professional Conduct Committees. She is a Law Society Council member where she represents the interests of sole practitioners.

Lubna has a keen interest in theatre and, in another life (which seems many moons ago!), she was a member of a theatre company which enabled her to perform in lead roles at the West Yorkshire Playhouse, the Bradford Alhambra and other theatres around Yorkshire.

LEGAL AID, EDItoR of SoLo & SPG Co-oRDInAtoRHilary UnderwoodH A Underwood SolicitorsUnderwood House, 32 BroadwaySheerness, Kent ME12 1TPTel: 01795 [email protected]

Hilary originates from Northamptonshire and qualified as a solicitor in 1999. She set up her family law firm in 2003 in Kent, focusing on legal aid clients and primarily specialising in children law. Hilary is now taking up an exciting new role as SPG Co-ordinator and is looking forward to helping SPG represent and support our members. In her spare time, Hilary loves to read and it is her dream to one day complete her novel (whilst travelling around the world)! She loves to spend time with family and friends, and enjoys nothing better than an evening of food, laughter and a good movie.

ConfEREnCE oRGAnISER Sushila AbrahamS Abraham Solicitors290a Ewell RoadSurbiton, SurreyKT6 7AQTel: 020 8390 [email protected]

Sushila has lived in Surbiton, Surrey for over twenty years. She decided to start her own practice locally because she wanted to offer quality and care to the local community. She also wanted to be free from pressure to overcharge clients in order to meet the profit and billing targets set up by some of the bigger law firms. She is married to barrister Matthew, and they have one son who has also qualified as a barrister. In addition to being wife and mother, running her practice in Surrey, and her role on the SPG Executive Committee as Conference Organiser, Sushila is also ‘Cllr Sushila Abraham’, having been elected as Lib-Dem local councillor in the Borough of Kingston in a by-election in February 2013 and then re-elected in May 2014. Sushila is also Vice-President of Surrey Law Society. Sushila is a very community minded person and has also run cookery classes for local school children, which she called “Suzie’s Kitchen”, believing in the importance of teaching life skills.

hon. tREASURER Julian TaylorHonley Law Practice24 WestgateHolmfirth, West YorkshireHD9 6AATel: 01484 [email protected]

Julian qualified in 1987 and became a Sole Practitioner in 2002. Dealing with marital and property issues, he runs a family business with his wife Pat, who is his Practice Manager and his daughter Charlotte who looks after the firm’s Conveyancing. When he isn’t working, Julian enjoys gardening, running, cycling and sailing.

CoUnCIL mEmBERIan LithmanLithman & Co3 Lakis CloseLondonNW3 1JXTel: 020 7935 [email protected]

Ian is a retired general practitioner who can’t swim but is into boats and motor cruisers in particular. Ian is also a lover and collector of inexpensive art and antiques and who in the next life will be an interior designer but never a minimalist! Ian remains on the Roll as a solicitor and enjoyed 52 years of the variety and excitement of private practice until the Regulators and the Government killed the joy of it.

wEBSItE Co-oRDInAtoR Karen PurdyPurdys Solicitors26 PeppersladeCambridgeCB22 4XTTel: 01223 [email protected]

Having read Law at Cambridge University and completed her training in 1999, Karen set up her niche Private Client firm in 2003. Karen asked her almost-5-year-old son what she does in her spare time. He said “what spare time?”. That about sums it up! When she is not working or on various committees, Karen enjoys yoga, looking at the saxophone that she is supposed to be learning and she occasionally paints, plays the flute or does some gardening. Karen also spends far too much time looking at RightMove! Her favourite thing to do is to spend time with her lovely husband and son.


Nicholas WoolfNicholas Woolf & Co Solicitors67 Chancery LaneLondonWC2A 1ETTel : 020 7242 6018Email: [email protected]

Nick was admitted as a solicitor in 1979 and was a partner in two firms in the London area before starting his own practice in the West End in 1987. In 2011 he moved on to create his niche commercial and family practice in Chancery Lane. He is a Member of the Solicitors Family Law Association and has trained other professionals on family law matters and money laundering. Nick is married with four children and he has a range of hobbies which include music, tennis, reading and photography.

Hamish McNairMcNair & CoEBC House, Ranelagh GardensLondonSW6 3PATel: 020 7371 [email protected]

Hamish is based in Fulham, London. Having initially specialised in copyright and trade mark work, both in the City and New York City, his practice now includes conveyancing, wills trusts and probate, as well as litigation. Married with three children, when Hamish is not in the office or involved in SPG matters he enjoys open-air swimming, sailing, overnight bike rides, and also has a passion for the theatre.

SRA woRkInG GRoUP LEAD David Leigh-HuntDavid Leigh-Hunt SolicitorsBedford House76a Bedford StreetLeamington Spa, Warwickshire CV32 5DTTel: 01926 [email protected]

David holds the degree of LLM from London University and is a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators. He and his wife (who is also a solicitor) have run a small Practice for 18 years engaged with the community in Leamington Spa. The majority of their work is referral based.

They have four adult children all of whom have professional occupations, the eldest is a corporate solicitor in London.

David’s main hobby is input as a member of a Board of Trustee/Directors of a charitable company connected with the arts whose principle business is running a private museum in Rome.

Susan CarterRoss CarterFairhaven, Rhinefield RoadBrockenhurst, HantsSO42 7SQTel: 01590 [email protected]

In her limited spare time Sue enjoys walks in the country and catching up with friends. She is an early riser and enjoys listening to Farming Today and other radio programmes. She has family nearby and a demanding dog!

Oluwakemi MosakuThe Old Courthouse1 The PaddockChathamKent ME4 4RETel : 01634 [email protected]

Kemi is dual qualified in both England and Wales, as well as Nigeria.

Kemi is called to the Nigerian Bar as a barrister of the Supreme Court of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

She is a single mother of three young men, two of whom play semi-pro football for two separate teams and the family supports Manchester United.

In her spare time, when Kemi is not out supporting her son’s football matches, she enjoys music, reading and cooking.

Tahira ShaffiMikhael Law197 Rochdale RoadBury, LancsBL9 7BBTel: 0161 222 6092Email: [email protected]

Tahira has been a practicing solicitor for almost 16 years. She set up as a sole practitioner after being made redundant in 2010. Tahira is a fairly new member of the SPG Committee having joined just over 18 months ago. She has found SPG to be an extremely helpful point of contact on so many issues which are affecting the whole profession whilst paying particular attention to the needs of Sole Practitioners. Tahira understands that being a sole practitioner can be a lonely experience but networking with like-minded individuals makes all the difference. She is glad that there is an independent body outside of the Law Society that is working hard to look after its members interests. Tahira is based in Bury, Greater Manchester where she lives with her husband and teenage son who has just started college. She has lots of interests outside of the law including politics. Tahira is an LEA school governor and has stood as a councillor previously as she passionately believes in doing her civic duty and putting something back into the community. It is a lot to juggle with but Tahira is proud of the work of the SPG because she believes in better representation for Sole Practitioners!

ChAIR – PRACtICE SUB CommIttEE Martin T SmithOld Coach HouseOld Road, LinsladeLeighton Buzzard, Beds LU7 2RBTel: 01525 374 [email protected]

Martin was admitted as a solicitor in 1975 after 5 years articles and acquired his sole general practice in Leighton Buzzard in 1985 where he has practised ever since. Martin has been a member of the SPG National Executive Committee since its inception (he believes that only Ian Lithman is still an “original”). Martin lives with his partner in Leighton Buzzard and when he is not working, he enjoys spending time with her. They share a number of hobbies together, including stamp collecting.


IT’S A LAWYER’S LIFE.... 09

TWENTY YEARS A SINGLETON 11

EVERY CLOUD HAS A SILVER LINING 14

THE FUTURE OF THE LAND REGISTRY 16

SBA THE SOLICITORS CHARITY 17

LINKED IN FOR LAWYERS? 18

SPG INTERNATIONAL GROUP 20

VICTIMS’ LAW 22

USING ONLINE TECHNOLOGY TO GENERATE CLIENTS 24

SPG ANNUAL CONFERENCE – A LOOK BACK AT PORTSMOUTH 25

SPG 20TH ANNUAL CONFERENCE 2015 28

APPEALS AFTER IMMIGRATION ACT 2014: THE WINNERS AND LOSERS 30

THE LIFE AND TIMES OF AN ARTICLED CLERK IN THE LATE 1950’S – PART V 31

TALKING TO THE SRA 32

LOCAL GROUPS 35

AUSTRIAN ADVENTURES 37

SPG LOBBYING GROUP 38

STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY – SOLE PRACTITIONER, LLP, LDP OR ABS? 39

PROFESSIONAL INDEMNITY INSURANCE – THE LONG HOT SUMMER 41

SPG IN ACTION 42

MINISTRY OF JUSTICE CONSULTATION ON OTTERBURN & KPMG REPORTS 43

RESPONSE BY SOLICITORS SOLE PRACTITIONERS GROUP TO THE SRA CONSULTATION ON THE COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS REVIEW 47

SRA CONSULTATION PAPER ON MULTI DISCIPLINARY PRACTICES 48

RESPONSE BY THE SOLICITOR SOLE PRACTITIONERS GROUP TO PROFESSIONAL INDEMNITY INSURANCE CONSULTATION BY THE SRA 50

RESPONSE BY THE SOLICITORS SOLE PRACTITIONERS GROUP TO THE SRA CONSULTATION IN RELATION TO THE CHANGES TO REPORTING ACCOUNTING REQUIREMENTS 54

FLYING SOLO 55

COUNCIL MEMBER’S REPORT 56

GOING SOLO 58

Contents

SOLO JOURNALContributions to SOLO are welcome. Editorial or Advertising – contact details are available on SPG’s website www.spg.uk.com.Editorial Board – Hilary Underwood, Kem Masinbo-Amobi and Sukhjit Ahluwalia.Views expressed in SOLO may not be the views of SPG. SOLO is copyrighted to SPG.


It’s a Lawyer’s life.... with Andrew Caplen, President of the Law Society

3. Do you wish you had?!

No. I have really enjoyed being a Solicitor even on the days when things have not gone so well.

4. Describe a typical day in the life of Andrew Caplen.

There is no typical day as President of the Law Society. It can range from internal meetings, visiting members of the profession, speaking at conferences or receptions and dinners, traveling to Westminster to talk to politicians, presiding at Admission Ceremonies, giving interviews to journalists. The list is endless.

5. What would you say has been your greatest challenge in life?

It was not easy to become a Solicitor. I am one of six children. My parents were market gardeners and had a market stall in Salisbury market, so there were no links with the profession. I guess that I always had the academic ability, but obtaining a place as a Trainee Solicitor (then called an Articled Clerk!) was not easy.

6. What has been your proudest moment?

From a professional point of view, being installed as President of the Law Society of England and Wales on 10th July

In this edition, SPG asks Andrew Caplen, Law Society President:

1. What made you become a lawyer?

A history teacher at my school was a great influence. He spoke to us as much about law and the legal profession as the subject that he was supposed to be teaching. He had quite an influence – out of a class of twenty students, four of us went on to study law at University and became lawyers. Our history teacher eventually left teaching and qualified as a barrister. I came across him again a few years later, just after I started Articles in Southampton.

2. If you hadn’t become a lawyer, what would you have done instead?

I really do not know. If I had been unable to obtain a place on a law course, I would probably have studied English Literature at University, but cannot say where that would have led me.

The Law Society, Chancery Lane : Panorama https://www.flickr.com/photos/chough/6269521192/ by Tom Goskar https://www.flickr.com/photos/chough/ is licensed under CC by 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/


E-mail: [email protected] include:

Let us help you to get your business off to a flying start or get an alternative view if you are already trading. Free no obligation first meeting. Why not give us a call.

Tel: 020 8508 8214 & 01245 266309

2014. I am very aware of the trust placed in me by the profession. It is a great responsibility.

7. How do you manage to relax away from work?

My wife is a Church Minister and I help and support what she does. I am a long-distance walker and have completed a number of multi-day treks – including the Pembrokeshire Coastal Path, the GR20 in Corsica and the Milford Track in New Zealand. I am also a Southampton FC season ticket holder.

8. Is there anything still left to do on your ‘bucket list’?

I guess that I try and live “in the moment” as much as possible. I would, however, like to do as much as I can whilst President to raise awareness of the problems facing access to justice. We have a growing problem here. Next

year we celebrate the signing of the Magna Carta. It is regarded as being the foundation of the rule of law, but the rule of law is meaningless without there also being access to justice for citizens.

9. What makes you really angry and really happy?

I guess that I do not really get angry, although I do find technology very frustrating when it does not work! I very much like meeting people, but also being with my family. And enjoying the peace and solitude on the top of a mountain pass that has required a lot of physical effort to reach.

10. If you could change anything about your life, what would it be?

I try not to look back! I do wish that I had been a better footballer, but I am not sure that really answers the question!

11. How would you like to be remembered?

A legacy that is about me is not important. I would rather that those coming behind “take up the baton” – particularly that of access to justice.

12. What advice would you give to sole practitioners today?

Be adaptable, embrace risk management, prepare solid business plans and enjoy your practices!

Andrew Caplen

President of The Law Society of England and Wales

October 2014

Chartered Accountants

Loughton & Chelmsford

• Statutory Audit • Management and Financial accounts• Financial Investigation • Corporate & Personal tax• Payroll • Book-keeping• SRA reporting

• Management review• Financial appraisals • Strategic planning• Corporate development • Business proposals• Raising finance • Tax planning


Twenty Years a Singleton

If you have partners you have to share it. If you have no staff of any kind you remove a lot of the complications of working life and risks that someone will be negligent or useless or as lazy as sin.

I have always loved law. I enjoy it as much now I am 52 as when I was 17 and I was researching in the university library. Even now I enjoy reading judgments as much as watching films for pleasure and after 30 years of practice I hope to have 30 more. In 1992, my first book was published when I was 30 and a competition/IP/IT solicitor at Bristows - Introduction to Competition Law. At least 30 more books have followed. This year I have written the next edition of Joint Ventures and Shareholders’ Agreements and this summer will do the same for my text book Commercial Agency Agreements. I update Business the Internet and the Law ( looseleaf) three times a year and Comparative Law of Monopolies

Practising solo can be fun. Articles not surprisingly concentrate on the problems that many

people have. However, there can be huge advantages to practising as a sole practitioner and by drawing on my own experience in this article I hope to provide a few insights to readers. I was always keen to get on and indeed planned my legal career in my teens, graduating in law from Manchester University when I was only twenty and found my training contract at Nabarro which I began in 1983. By the time I was 23 I was qualified, working at Slaughter and May, married with a very small outer London house (they sell at £275k these days which is still relatively cheap for London) and indeed we had our first baby when I was a trainee solicitor. I chose to use 2 weeks of annual leave during my training contract when our first daughter arrived (and with the other children) and returned to work full time which worked well for us all. We hired a daily nanny and as I come from a long line of feminists there was never any sexism or unfairness at home.

By age 26, I was working at London intellectual property firm Bristows which hired me with two children under four and when I was 5 months pregnant. The moves were simply sparked by a desire to be made a partner which never happened, but, given the pleasure I have

had and relatively high earnings over the last 20 years and very pleasant life, was probably a blessing in disguise. If you practise alone you keep all the money.

After practising as a solicitor at Slaughter and May and Bristows Susan Singleton set up her own London sole practice in 1994 where she specialises in commercial law/litigation particularly competition, intellectual property and IT Law.

Susan is a ‘Singleton’ solicitor by name and a ‘singleton’ solicitor by nature. She shares her inspiring story of how sole practice has enabled her to juggle the responsibilities of career,

family and motherhood and ‘have it all’

twice a year. Even with university prizes and the like in the early 80s it was very difficult obtaining a training contract. I made 115 applications to London firms before finding a training contract at Nabarro working then on Jermyn Street. Graduates recently have had similarly difficult experiences as the economy moves in cycles. My older daughter is a banking solicitor at Macfarlanes and her younger sister is an in-house solicitor at Clear Channel International in Soho.

I ended up in competition law by chance. I was determined to pick commercial law options at university as I wanted to work in London at a commercial firm as the money is better and the work fascinating. Far too many women pick low paid areas of all kinds of careers and then do very badly at negotiating higher pay. I was not going to be one of them. Over 30 years ago it was obvious which areas of law paid best and were interesting. Trade Competition in which I had won a university year prize was one of my university options and I am sure that helped my being hired by Slaughter and May in their competition team when I qualified after training at Nabarro. So advice to youngsters (and I have five) if it even needs saying remains to work very hard at school and university and seek to be the best, including in your degree. Then as now it also pays to do as I did – obtain work experience in a law firm, law centre and mooting experience. I thought I might end up practising tax law. I did six months at my request in the tax department at Nabarro as a trainee and had won the university tax prize which was particularly pleasant as just about all the other students on that option were male. I still like tax to this day, although as I was hired on qualification to an EC/Competition

“If you practise alone you keep all the money. If you have partners

you have to share it.”


I did see clients here last week – the first for several months – on a competition law matter where my client is a law firm which does not practise competition law. They came down from Yorkshire to see me (as I charge my full hourly rate for all travelling). I do not give free initial meetings as the nature of my work is often that one hour of specialist advice is all that is needed.

I publish I T Law Today, Farm Law, Education Law Monitor, Environmental Law Monthly, Pensions Today, Corporate Briefing, Finance and Credit Law, International Trade Finance, Food and Drink Law Monthly and Housing Law Monitor. These are subscription newsletters (print and email) and I remain grateful to the loyal subscribers many of whom are solicitors’ firms for their continuing support. Details of subscriptions are on my website www.singlelaw.com. After years of editing a journal and writing and updating law books, moving into the publishing side has been a fascinating addition to my practice. I have generally tried to spread risk by having income from editing, writing, clients (my main source) and speaking. I spoke at 30 conferences last year many for a whole day for companies such as BPP, MBL and Falconbury for fees (I never speak for no charge) and that has also helped in keeping me known in my practice areas and sometimes in generating client work. Indeed I spoke at 50 a year until I decided to reduce the number due to pressure of client work. I find the speaking the hardest work of all that I do. However it has meant I keep up to date (no CPD needed to be bought) and has led me all over the world to speak from Iran (twice) to Dubai, Trinidad to Lagos (twice) and much of Europe. In these ways you can be paid for your marketing rather than vice versa.

Department which did non-contentious IP that became my practice area. My point here is simply that choices people make as teenagers and at university have an impact later. Of course people can redeem themselves later if they are brilliant even with poor examination results and pursue a great career as after a few years it is your client following and relationships and legal expertise which counts, but it is harder to do so. Above all pick an area of law which you enjoy. If you can pick work you enjoy which also keeps the wolf from the door so much the better. If you enjoy work then it is not a burden to do it. I genuinely obtain as much pleasure sitting here at home advising clients by telephone and email as I do sitting in the garden reading the newspaper.

In 1994 no partnership at Bristows was forthcoming so I set up on my own as a solicitor – Singletons (in those days the firm had to have your name within its title). I have always worked at home in North London. In the mid 80s at Slaughter and May I advised on a lot of the IT/computer contracts when Big Bang happened and share trading went electronic and was one of the early computer lawyers. I started editing IT Law Today, a legal journal, when I was at Bristows (which I continue to do to this day as I acquired that journal along with 9 others from Informa and now run a small publishing business in addition to my law firm). So I was always ahead of others in use of technology. I was able to work from home because the nature of most of my commercial work can easily be achieved remotely. I probably meet one client every 2 or 3 months in person and that may well be at their office as so much can be done by email. For example I have just taken on some work challenging an EU directive. I met the clients, who flew over from abroad, in London at the offices of another law firm involved in the case and everything else from instructions to counsel to communication with the client has been by email. In fact, I actively ensure there are very few meetings as they take up time in preparation, attendance and the like.

For those wanting to develop their practice I recommend:-

• write a law book about your practice area

• write legal articles - at one stage I bought BRAD - a huge listing of every trade publication in the UK

• give talks about your area of practice

• tweet

Others buy email contact lists although ensure you obtain appropriate data protection warranties in the contract. My month buying Google adwords was not successful but given the number of search optimisation companies there are, some of which have advised, and the amount of my work which relates to “take down”, fake internet reviews of products, internet selling and competition/IP law and the like clearly this is a huge area for marketing by solicitors and many others. My last hearing in the Court of Appeal related to an injunction application concerning internet selling policies.

I do no client entertaining, thankfully, although I am sure it is good way to garner clients for those so inclined. I am Vice Chairman of the Competition Law Association and on the EU Laws Committee of the Licensing Executives Society (LES deals with intellectual property issues) and I am sure being involved in similar associations and perhaps Law Society groups are other good ways of becoming known and maintaining connections to people as well as keeping up to date. I have contributed to some on-line groups which has led to the occasional client. Increasing numbers of people find solicitors through on-line searches. A new client may well have looked at my website, looked me up online and had a recommendation from an accountant or patent attorney or barrister. I read legal developments every day of the year on-line and like to be the first person to know about a new legal change where I can. The internet has made sure sole practitioners can be as up to date as those in the bigger firms. Look at website relevant to your legal area – for me this would be the Intellectual Property Office, European Commission

“I was always ahead of others in use of technology. I was able to

work from home because the nature of most of my commercial work can

easily be achieved remotely.”


debt and most clients will pay within the month after I send the bill. I wrote two books on buying and selling professional services. I do not hold clients’ money which is perhaps why compliance seems a lot easier to me and I shop around every year for indemnity insurance which I have never found particularly expensive may be because of my practice area. I have never had a claim in 30 years.

Above all I have had a lot of fun in law and hope to continue to do so for the next 30 years practising alone. I believe I have achieved a lovely balanced life with a large family of five children and my work and hobbies. I sing with Lawyers’ Music (I encourage readers to join) and other choirs. At Easter I sold my island in Panama in the Pacific after ten very enjoyable years of ownership and having completed a building project on it last year. That was another childhood aim - to own an island as we enjoy survival skills and isolation as a family. The variety of business activities and the daily marketing all help to ensure I have always had enough work. When people call asking if they should set up on their

and the new Competition and Markets Authority.

I have not found professional rules as bad as some people suggest perhaps because I am the only person in my firm. I do not employ a secretary. I am very careful to be compliant and always do proper ID checks. I do administration and my accounts every day and bill every client at the end of the month on all matters. I charge all clients £240 per hour plus VAT although for most I

will also tell them in advance the time/cost - eg “It will take an hour to look over and amend this agreement. This will cost you £240 plus VAT”. As I am so clear about costs I rarely have a bad

own as solicitors I always say the main question is whether they can generate work. Without that you starve. Billing and money are the core of this. Now that my teenagers are getting bigger I am sure that the next 10 years will be some of the very best both for earnings and enjoyment of the law.

Finally some people are always unhappy whatever they do and others not. I am from a family of psychiatrists, not lawyers. It can be as important to fix issues such as sleep and food and lack or exercise to ensure a happy professional life whatever the situation as it can be to move firms but simply to take the problem with you. Psychology is also as important in keeping and obtaining client as any other aspect. I certainly find that working for myself from home makes it easier to ensure I control my life and environment in ways which continue to make life become better and better.

Susan Singleton, Solicitor, Singletons, www.singlelaw.com twitter @singlelaw.com

“Above all I have had a lot of fun in law and hope to continue to do so for the next 30 years practising alone. I believe I have achieved a lovely balanced life with a large family of five children and my

work and hobbies.”

Power tools for lawyers.

www.lexisnexis.co.uk/powertools

LexisNexis online services cover 25 specialist areas of law, priced and packaged to suit the unique needs of sole practitioners.

Law, tools and business support to help you work faster and smarter.

1014-030 Solo Power Tools Advert half page.indd 1 07/10/2014 13:59

EVERY CLOUD HAS A SILVER LINING In a profession notorious for being slow to change, law firms are increasingly turning to cloud-based solutions for many of the traditionally office-based systems – such as synchronizing calendars, matter tracking, remote access

to email, document storage and backup. We ask Steve Thorns, director of Hosted Desktop UK to explain why.

whAt IS A hoStED DESktoP?

A hosted desktop is a cloud-based service that removes the need for a traditional in-house IT infrastructure, for example servers, and instead all of your application software, data, files and email services are provided over the internet from your own ‘virtual server’ in a secure data centre. This allows you to work remotely from any internet connection with a suitably enabled device. A hosted desktop does not require processing to take place or data to be transmitted over the internet. The data remains in the secure data centres and all that travels over the internet are simple screen scrapes, user keystrokes, and mouse movements, and consequently the required internet connections are often lower than expected. Typically a 1Mbps connection per 10 users will provide a good level of speed and performance.

Cloud computing has a number of advantages, namely improved backup/

disaster recovery, flexibility, increased storage capacity, increased data handling capacity, reduced infrastructure costs, avoiding frequent updates to software and reduced internal IT staff costs. However, it also carries risks that your firm should navigate carefully.

whAt IS CLoUD ComPUtInG?

Cloud computing is now a commonly used term, although not always correctly used or even understood. ‘The Cloud’ is basically a buzzword for the internet and is thought to originate from the use of a cloud symbol to represent the internet in flowcharts and diagrams. Cloud computing refers to web services, applications and data that are stored in data centres and accessed securely over the internet via any internet-enabled device – from laptops and tablets to smartphones. A typical example of this type of service is Google mail.

Companies and individuals have been increasingly using cloud services to provide extra data storage, archiving and backup. More recently they are learning of the benefits to be gained by moving their IT away from a traditional in-house setup to ‘hosted services’, the term which is now more frequently used for this type of service, and in particular ‘hosted desktops’.

A hosted desktop solution will include a Windows operating system, similar to Windows 7 or 8, and your application software – for example, practice and case management, document handling, and dictation management system. These are accessed from within the desktop in exactly the same way as if they were on a server in your office. It really does look and behave the same as working on your desktop PC in the office.

If required, you can also have Microsoft Office Standard or Professional, and an email system – most commonly Microsoft Exchange. This brings all your office applications and data together in one place, accessible from anywhere with a connection. Software that you already access through a web browser can continue to be accessed through a web browser of your choice from within the hosted desktop. This gives you access to your office anywhere and at any time, it is a complete managed hosted desktop solution and should include access to a telephone and online support team.

how Do I kEEP mY DAtA SAfE?

Clearly one of the top priorities for a law firm should be data security. Surveys conducted by respected industry analysts suggest that hosted services provide a higher level of data security than most in-house systems. Records show that the biggest sources of data

Steve Thomas is co-director with Adam Chetnik of Hosted Desktop UK Limited (HDUK), whose virtual desktop solutions were an instant success when launched in August 2010, following two years of rigorous research and development into cloud-based technology. The company continues to grow its team to support the company’s success.


how CoULD mY BUSInESS BEnEfIt?

Hosted services offer a number of significant benefits. Firstly, they remove the need for a law firm to have its own internal server network, which can cost many thousands of pounds to purchase, set up and maintain. Buying in hosted services becomes an operating expense rather than capital expenditure – paying for your IT services on a ‘per user per month’ basis helps you manage your cash flow better. Secondly, but by no means least, remote access to your business applications, data, and email offers much greater flexibility in the way you work. It allows you, for example, to work from home, on most inter-city trains, at your clients’ premises, or even by the pool at your favourite resort hotel so long as they have local Wi-Fi, as many now do!

A hosted desktop solution is great for anyone starting a business or professional practice. It means very low start-up costs and the service can grow with you, as you will be able to add users to your system with minimal notice. For a start-up or smaller business you can choose to make your home your office, and also allow any staff to work from home too, but still share all your data and files. So, as well as the cost savings on IT, you could also make further cost reductions by avoiding the huge costs that can sometimes be incurred by renting office space. As your business grows and you do decide to move into office premises, it is a simple process – just move your PC to the new office, connect to the internet, and reconnect to your hosted desktop!

loss and leaks in a conventional setup come from misplaced USB sticks, stolen laptops, unsecured internet connections and less than honest employees. Under the Data Protection Act 1999, storage of data remains the responsibility of data controller (i.e. you the business owner), so you must ensure that the data processor (cloud/hosting provider) maintains good practice in terms of security and that your data is held within the EU (preferably in the UK) or if in the United States, with a registered ‘safe harbour’ provider.

For instance, Hosted Desktop UK’s (HDUK) infrastructure is all located within the UK and housed in redundant Ministry of Defence nuclear bunkers. It also includes sophisticated intrusion protection systems as well as full power back-up systems, multiple internet feeds, and 24/7/365 on-site security using ex-military and police force trained staff. All transmissions over the internet to and from your hosted desktop are encrypted using SSL encryption – the same as is used for online banking and secure payments. Our system incorporates standard data back-up procedures as well as a full replication to a second data centre, ensuring access to your applications and data even in the event of a major outage at one of the sites.

how mUCh DoES It CoSt to SEt UP A CLoUD ComPUtInG SYStEm foR mY BUSInESS?

One of the benefits of a hosted system is the low ‘per user’ start-up cost. Charges vary between suppliers, and dependent upon whether you opt for a basic hosted desktop or a full hosted desktop.

how Do I mAkE thE moVE Into thE CLoUD?

The one-off set up charge would include a fully managed migration from your in-house system, the process is generally phased over the period of one week with the main data transfer being done over the weekend to minimize disruption. The system is then programmed to ‘go live’ for the Monday morning, with full assistance from your appointed migration manager. He/she will have requested remote access to your system early in the process to assess the amount of data to transfer and, depending on the amount of data, they will have made a decision to either do this over the internet or to send you a portable drive, which would then be collected by courier and taken to our data centre.

If you would like more information about how hosted services can benefit your business and for details of special offers for SPG members visit Hosted Desktop’s website at www.hosteddesktopuk.co.uk or you can email us at [email protected]

To speak to a member of our sales or technical team telephone us on 020 3239 6181

“Records show that the biggest sources of data loss and

leaks in a conventional setup come from misplaced USB

sticks, stolen laptops, unsecured internet connections and less

than honest employees.”

“For a start-up or smaller business you can choose to make your home your office, and also

allow any staff to work from home too, but still share all your data

and files.”www.spg.uk.com Solo - Autumn/Winter 2014 15


THE FUTURE OF THE LAND REGISTRY

its current fee structure was not unreasonable and made a profit for the Treasury. Its primary function was registering title to land in England and Wales with a state guarantee of the registered proprietor’s title. If the Registry was granted further powers and privatisation took place then there was a risk of the integrity of the register being compromised as the Registry might well become subject to commercial pressures resulting in it having priorities other than administering the register and the state title guarantee. There would also be no effective controls over the fees any privatised registry could charge.

SPG’s objections were very much in line with the other objections raised and it seems that maybe the Government were taken aback by the strength of the opposition to the privatisation proposal. In any event it is now reported that the proposals for privatisation have now been scrapped – for the time being at least.

However the proposal to transfer responsibility for registration of local land charges from local authorities (who will still create them) to the Land Registry remains. The Land Registry would only be obliged to register these created not more than 15 years before and presumably as local authorities would cease to register any land charges anyway on conveyancing purchases it would no doubt be necessary to search at the local authority as well as the Land Registry to ensure that all avenues had been explored and all entries (if any) affecting the property are disclosed. Clearly an absurd way to proceed!

Those of you who do conveyancing will be aware that there have been two proposals recently

which would impact considerably on the conveyancing process if they were proceeded with.

The first relates to local land charges. There is a proposal to transfer responsibility for registration of local land charges from local authorities to the Land Registry. Some changes are also proposed to the definition of a local land charge in order for this change to be more easily made. If the transfer went ahead the Land Registry would only register charges arising during the previous 15 years.

The second proposal was for the Land Registry itself to be given further powers in relation to the property market and to be privatised.

In relation to the latter there was widespread opposition from almost all professionals working in the property sector who used the Registry. SPG took the view that the Land Registry was efficient, worked well at present,

Martin Smith is a member of the SPG National Executive Committee and practises in Leighton Buzzard, Beds.

Executive Committee Member Martin Smith looks at recent proposals potentially impacting upon the conveyancing process

It is the view of the SPG Executive Committee that plans to privatise the Land Registry must not be proceeded with in any circumstances. I wrote to my MP asking him to ensure that these proposals go no further as if they do pass into law quite apart from the problems mentioned in the last paragraph they would be of assistance in reviving the plans to privatise the Land Registry. The response that I have received from my MP appears below this article and states that there are no current plans to privatise the Land Registry. If you agree please also ask your MP to ensure that this happens. If you can think of any other way to achieve this please let any member of the SPG Executive Committee know!

martin Smith


SBA THE SOLICITORS CHARITY: SUPPORT FOR SPG MEMBERS AND THEIR FAMILIES

As all lawyers know only too well, when adversity strikes, the impact on personal and professional life can be severe. When it hits a sole practitioner, there can be additional challenges in knowing where to turn to in times of need. With no partners to help take the strain, the resulting sense

of isolation, coupled with increasing personal financial difficulties, can bring pressures that are simply overwhelming.

SBA has been helping solicitors, former solicitors and their families when they hit tough times since 1858. Formerly known as the Solicitors’ Benevolent Association, the charity is often associated with more traditional types of support for older or disabled people. SBA does of course still help former colleagues but, a recent analysis of all those who SBA supported in 2013 shows that two thirds of its beneficiaries are actually below pension age, Nearly a quarter still has dependent children living at home, with lone parents in the majority.

As a charity run by and for solicitors, SBA has also geared its services for market contraction. One new pathway is to provide free careers support, underpinned by short-term financial help to boost people’s chances of getting back into work, either in the law or not. Subject to a confidential test of income and savings, solicitors who qualify for financial assistance can join a three-month programme which offers holistic career, job search and wellbeing support, all provided by a single professional consultancy. SBA also seeks to help create financial breathing space for colleagues who need that extra bit of support at the right time – for example, covering the costs of removal expenses for a family looking to downsize their home.

If you would like to find out more, please visit the SBA website at www.sba.org.uk, email to [email protected] or telephone in confidence on 020 8675 6440.


FOR LAWYERS?

greets a visitor when they land on your profile so it needs to make a good impression. My professional services are listed concisely so it’s easy to digest, while also explaining the value I can provide to potential clients. Having a photograph is essential as it adds a face to a name and I’ve been advised to use an above the shoulder professional photograph. You can add documents, images and videos to your LinkedIn summary and this not only adds a visual element but it can also be used to highlight your expertise if you decide to add a case study, for example. Recommendations which are like testimonials can be left by clients and even colleagues which help to build your reputation so I try to do this whenever possible.

Growing your network is key as this increases the number of people that you can communicate with and reach. LinkedIn helps in this regard as they make suggestions and you can enter your email addresses to get further suggestions. I try to connect with

I want to share my experience of using LinkedIn as a networking tool. I was advised last year that it is an effective

tool for lawyers and so I decided to give it a try. LinkedIn is a social network for business people so it’s different to Facebook which is geared more towards consumers. At the moment I would say that the results have been mixed but it hasn’t been long since I started taking it more seriously so it’s still a ‘work in progress’. I’m trying to dedicate more time to some of the elements of LinkedIn that I will be discussing in this article. As well as sharing my thoughts here I’d like to hear feedback from any readers on what their experience has been and if they have any tips or success stories to share.

One of the first things I did when starting out was to clean up my profile so that it was more appealing to visitors. The summary is particularly important as it is the first thing that

Ann Humphrey is a London-based tax lawyer specialising in stamp duty land tax, business tax and VAT.

Ann Humphrey, sole practitioner and specialist tax lawyer shares how she has used LinkedIn to promote her practice

new contacts after meetings as this is another way to grow your network. When connecting with others I have been advised that it’s best practice to customise your message rather than use the default wording. This makes sense as it just adds a personal touch so I try to do this whenever I can. While connecting with work colleagues is a good start the aim should be to connect with customers and potential customers as these are essentially the people who you want to do business with.

“One of the first things I did when starting out was to clean

up my profile so that it was more appealing to visitors.”


LinkedIn publicises the vast majority of your activity so if you make a connection, update your profile or post a message in a group, your connections will see this information in their news feed. You can also add updates to your ‘feed’ that your connections can see. If I produce a blog post I add it to my ‘feed’ and I can also add news from other sources that I think are useful. From what I understand any content you add to your feed is normally published in the email updates that LinkedIn sends out. This can help with awareness as it keeps your business and services in people’s minds. A recent addition has been ‘Publisher’ where you can actually post your own content to LinkedIn that you can share with your connections but I have not had a chance to look at this in any great detail yet.

LinkedIn offers a free and paid version. I currently have a paid membership so this offers a few benefits like the ability to message anyone even if they are out of my network. With a free account there are some restrictions in this regard. I have used the messaging facility to speak to new contacts. On some occasions after messaging and connecting I have set up meetings so it’s been useful from this point of view. A free account is still a very good option for getting a lot out of LinkedIn so it is definitely a good starting point.

The groups within LinkedIn are interesting and while I have used some I really do need to use them more. The groups are useful for discussions with like-minded individuals so you can ask questions and bounce ideas off other members. Networking with potential clients is also possible but the groups do require a time commitment and a lot of lawyers are time-poor so sometimes it’s difficult to get the right balance. One thing that the groups have achieved is to increase awareness of who I am. At the end of last year LinkedIn was the number one source of traffic to my website so I was quite impressed. One thing to bear in mind is that some groups are not very active or don’t have many useful discussions so an element of research is needed to weed out the unfruitful ones.

On the whole I would say that I’m pleased with what I have achieved with LinkedIn so far but I’d like to see more results. It does require a time commitment so I’m trying to be more active and I guess this will generate more results. One client last year did inform me that he looked at my LinkedIn profile amongst other things when deciding whether to use my services so in this particular instance it was part of the decision making process. I would say that it is a good network for lawyers but it requires a commitment to see the benefits.

Do you have experiences regarding LinkedIn that you’d like to share? I’d like to hear from you. To connect with me on LinkedIn please go to: https://www.linkedin.com/in/annlhumphrey

to find out more about Ann please visit her website: www.annlhumphrey.com

“I try to connect with new contacts after my meetings as this

is another way to grow your network.”

“If I produce a blog post I add it to my ‘feed’ and I can also add news from other sources that I

think are useful.”

“I would say that it is a good network for lawyers but it requires

a commitment to see the benefits.”

C

M

Y

CM

MY

CY

CMY

K

TMG Advert 148.5 x 210mm_FA.pdf 1 09/07/2013 10:00


SPG INTERNATIONAL GROUPNick Woolf, Executive Committee Member is leading the development of a group of sole

practitioners whose practice may already have, or may require, a wider international context.

Nick Woolf practises in Chancery Lane and is a member of the Executive Committee.

from our own village, town or county, it comes from further afield. International travel, the internet and the globalisation of business has meant that our clients often derive from many jurisdictions and need assistance with English law. Similarly you will have clients who may be purchasing holiday homes or be transacting business in many parts of the world where a recommendation for a local lawyer may be well appreciated by your own client.

For that reason the SPG have been attempting to build an international group. At the conference in May I circulated a letter, a copy of which is attached to this short article, and a form which is also attached. I had a positive response and seven sole practitioners other than myself wish to join the group. Given the number of sole practitioners there are in the United Kingdom this nucleus is a very small number.

At the SPG conference in Portsmouth this year I circulated a letter and

a form relating to the building of an international group of sole practitioners. I believe that many of us recognise that much of our work nowadays does not necessarily come

The intention is to grow the group and create a branding as being a member of that international group which hopefully would provide credence to its members.

Many of us have been in practice for a long time and know very many people. I, therefore, ask you to read this article, the letter and the form and complete it and return it to myself or Hilary Underwood whose details are contained in the letter with a view to holding a meeting in the early months of next year.

I look forward to hearing from you all.

Nicholas Woolf

Nicholas Woolf & Co87 Chancery LaneLondon WC2A 1ET

Tel: 020 7242 6018Email: [email protected]


SPG International GroupI am/am not willing to become a member of a SPG related international group.

Name: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Name of Firm: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Address: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Telephone No: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Email address: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Recommended Foreign Sole Practitionersname Address Country tel no Email address Speciality

May 2014

Dear Member

We as an organisation recognise although we all qualified as solicitors in England and Wales, as a result of global communication, travel and trade we are often involved in matters concerning not only English law but the laws of other jurisdictions.

We believe it is important to recognise this and embrace it in a positive fashion.

In this regard we are in the process of building an international group. The first steps have been taken and contact is being made with sole practitioners in other jurisdictions with a view to their forming their own organisations in their countries which can link with SPG. We understand, for example, a small group has been formed in Malaysia.

We are first attempting to compile a list of recommended sole practitioners in foreign countries and their specialisms.

To assist in the organisation of such an international group we would like you, if possible,to recommend from your specialism sole practitioners in other jurisdictions with a similar specialism who you have had contact with and believe to be competent and reliable. No responsibility will attach to such recommendations.

Second, we would invite SPG members who are particularly interested in joining an international group which it is intended in the future would include foreign sole practitioners to provide us with their details.

We would hope in future to be able to “brand” this group so as to give it some credence as an international organisation.

If you wish to join the group or merely wish to recommend a foreign practitioner or practitioner please will you complete the attached form providing your name, firm and email address and also the name and address, country, region and speciality of any foreign (and hopefully English speaking) lawyer you believe may be willing to consider becoming part of such a group. Please return the completed form to Nicholas Woolf at Nicholas Woolf & Co, 87 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1ET, [email protected] Hilary Underwood at H A Underwood Solicitors, Underwood House, 32 Broadway, Sheerness, Isle of Sheppey, Kent ME12 1TP, [email protected].

Yours sincerely

Nicholas Woolf


VICTIMS’ LAW: A TURNING POINT IN WITNESS CARE?Barrister Guy Draper looks at whether the proposed victims’ law heralds a real change in the

manner in which complainants are handled.

Guy Draper is a barrister at Pump Court Chambers in London. Called to the Bar in 2008, his practice includes criminal defence, employment, regulatory and civil work.

he had ‘launched an investigation’ into how to reduce the distress often felt by complainants during cross-examination ‘without compromising the fundamental right to a fair trial.’ In September 2013, Sadiq Khan, the Shadow Justice Secretary, went a step further and announced at the Labour Party conference that they would legislate to protect victims and to provide clearer information to witnesses regarding, for example, the length of sentences handed down.

In October 2013, the government published the new Code Of Practice For Victims Of Crime, a 78-page document explaining what treatment victims of crime can expect from the criminal justice system and what measures would be put in place for their protection. Among a list of ‘key entitlements’ are an ‘enhanced service’ for vulnerable victims, the entitlement to make a Victim Personal Statement to explain how the crime has affected him or her, and to read it out at court if the defendant is found guilty, the entitlement to referral to support organisations, to meet the CPS Prosecutor to ask questions about the court process, to apply for compensation, and so on.

One wonders why, therefore, on Monday 15th September of this year, the beleaguered justice secretary, Chris Grayling, announced that victims of crime will be afforded more rights under primary legislation.

His statement reads: “A new law will guarantee key entitlements for victims, previously set out in the Victims’ Code. This will include the right to make a personal statement and ask to have it

In early 2013 there was a slew of reports in the press concerning witnesses in criminal trials being

subjected to vicious and protracted cross-examination. These reports brought the issue of the handling of witnesses into public debate, and particularly shocking examples highlighted apparent deficiencies in the criminal justice system, such as in the trial of a gang who ran a child prostitution ring in Telford, Shropshire, where one 17-year-old female complainant, who had been sold for sex since she was 13, was aggressively cross-examined for 12 days by seven different defence barristers. Similarly shocking was the suicide of Frances Andrade who was giving evidence at trial in Manchester in support of her allegation of indecent assault against her former choirmaster.

It was clear that something needed to be done to prevent such apparent injustices occurring again, so the government and the opposition leapt into action to seek to remedy the problem while it remained a cause célèbre and therefore fertile ground in which to plant vote-winning policies.

From the end of March to mid-May last year, the government held a consultation to improve the code of practice for victims of crime. In June 2013, Damian Green, the then Minister of Police and Justice, announced that

read aloud in court; automatic referral to support organisations; information about individual cases at each and every stage; and an assessment of victims’ needs at the earliest opportunity.”

The new Act will therefore enshrine in law the key entitlements of the Code of Practice. Beyond this insubstantial change, publicly-funded advocates will be required to be trained in how to cross-examine vulnerable witnesses in cases of rape or serious sexual assaults, building on the current practices of judicially-led committees working to develop specific training aimed at advocates who appear in trials involving such witnesses. Further, there will be a Nationwide Victims’ Information Service, an online resource to provide complainants with ‘all the information they need about what to expect from the criminal justice system and support services’, including an online information portal and a helpline.

“...the government and the opposition leapt into action to seek

to remedy the problem while it remained a cause célèbre”


While these proposals will certainly be welcomed by the public, those in Criminal Practice will wonder whether they seek to change anything much at all. For example, with respect to the Victim Personal Statements, these are already used as standard at sentencing hearings, and there is no indication that the proposed legislation will alter their structure, use or importance. Similarly, access to compensation is nothing new, but the novel promise of compensation payment ‘up front’ raises serious questions about how this will be achieved; serious questions to which the government does not yet have an answer, as evidenced by the admission that the proposed up-front payment measure will be the subject of further consultation.

It is natural to query the purpose of such proposals when they have been made less than a year after the much-heralded new Code of Practice was published and when they do not seek to effect any significant change in the current practices relating to victims of crime. A cynical mind may note that this announcement came just ahead of the political party conference season, during which it was expected Labour’s Sadiq Khan would echo the proposals he made last year, which indeed he did.

The same cynical mind may also note that the government’s policy document states that the ‘legislation will be introduced in the next parliament’, which gives an indication not only of the lack of urgency in the new law’s introduction, but also of the purpose of it being proposed at all. Were the new legislation essential for the protection of the victims of crime, one might expect that the government would bring in the

law urgently, because any delay would be an unconscionable withholding of vital protection. The practical reality of introducing the legislation in the next parliament is that the earliest the law could substantively take effect is 2016, and, crucially, that is if and only if the current government retains power.

It is this chronological dynamic that discloses the political agenda in the proposal, and the agenda is made all the more apparent by the fact that this law, if it is introduced, will do little to change the experience of complainants beyond what is assured by the measures already in place. The irresistible conclusion is that this proposed legislation merely pays lip-service to the generally-held belief that the manner in which complainants are handled must change.

Keir Starmer QC, the former Director of Public Prosecutions, said in the Guardian newspaper in April of this year, “If a victims’ law is passed, it will be a first in our legal history. We must make sure any such law marks a turning point.” It is difficult to say that the current proposal marks anything more than a refinement of the status quo; a turning point it is not.

“While these proposals will certainly be welcomed by the

public, those in Criminal Practice will wonder whether they seek to change anything much at all.”

“...this law, if it is introduced, will do little to change the experience of complainants beyond what is

assured by the measures already in place.”

USING ONLINE TECHNOLOGY TO GENERATE CLIENTS

Are sole practitioners embracing online technology to source new clients? Warren Smith, Founder and Chief Executive of online directory AccessSolicitor.com explores the potential.

AccessSolicitor.com was launched by Warren Smith in August 2013. Since then, more than 130,000 people have visited the site.

First, there is the old guard: those that feel they have enough work and, with retirement for many looming, they are not particularly interested in taking on significantly more work. Technology is not a priority, perhaps understandably.

Then there are the early adopters, firms who have watched with interest as legal services reforms have come in and have tried to adjust, be it through new branding and marketing strategies, or even going into partnership with other providers. Not surprisingly, this chunk has embraced technology, from ensuring their own websites are the best they can be to developing digital marketing strategies.

But by far the biggest group are those in the middle. They are well aware of the many changes afoot, and the impact they are having, but for the time being, they are not doing anything about it.

This is for a multitude of reasons. Some simply do not have the resources; a marketing expert who can build a brand online, for instance, is not cheap. Others told us they wanted to wait until they were forced to adopt new technologies, because all their rivals were.

Thirty years ago, and few would have foreseen the dramatic changes coming the legal

profession’s way. The most recent – and arguably most radical – was, of course, the Legal Services Act 2007. Lawyers now have more freedom over how they manage their firms than ever before, including how they raise money and who they go into business with. Likewise, companies outside the profession have been given the green light to provide legal services.

Little surprise the Act is regularly dubbed the legal profession’s very own Big Bang.

Yet I would argue that there has been an even more radical change – and it is one that extraordinary numbers are still not properly addressing. The vast advancements in technology in the last two decades have impacted all aspects of our lives, and yet in the legal profession, many are still grappling with how best to use them to their advantage: to better manage, serve and retain existing clients, and to win new ones.

The company I founded, AccessSolicitor.com, marries technology and legal expertise. An online legal directory and resource aimed at consumers and small and medium-sized business, our database totals nearly 20,000 lawyers from all branches of the profession who we match with people coming to our site looking for expert legal advice.

It also means we speak to thousands of sole practitioners and firms on a regular basis. And the way we see it, the profession is roughly divided into three broad camps.

Embracing the right technology strategy for your business is a daunting task. It can be confusing and, once decided, the concern is that capital costs (and risks) will be high. Across the country margins are being squeezed; it can be tough to justify investing without a guaranteed return on investment.

But research consistently shows people are turning to the internet more and more to help find a lawyer – and that when they do, they are pleased with the results. The latest Legal Services Consumer Panel research, published earlier this year, found that more respondents had sourced a lawyer online than ever before. And of those who had used a lawyer they had found online, they recorded a satisfaction level of nearly 90 per cent, compared to an average of 80 per cent.

As all of us in the legal profession know, very little of worth happens overnight. Even the radical Legal Services Act is taking its time to be fully felt. But while the pace of change – be it regulatory or technological – may not always be speedy, the reality is that it is happening. It doesn’t mean every sole practitioner has to immediately rush out and develop a complex client intranet, or blow the budget hiring a digital marketing expert. It can just be small steps, such as ensuring your IT systems are up to date, or your website is user friendly and has the correct contact details prominently displayed, or even – of course – joining an online directory. But technology is here to stay – and you ignore it at your peril.

Warren Smithwww.accessolicitor.com



SPG ANNUAL CONFERENCE – REFLECTIONS ON PORTSMOUTH 2014 AND A GLIMPSE AHEAD TO 2015

kicked off (quite literally!) with cowboy boots, Stetsons, barn dance and outdoor hog roast buffet, complete with shooting gallery as delegates arrived at the Western-themed Friday night welcome event. For some, this followed a pleasant afternoon of friendly competition on the sunny golf course of the Meon Valley Hotel & Country Club.

After a relaxing start to the weekend, the CPD programme began in earnest on Saturday with a keynote address by Paul Philip, SRA Chief Executive who spoke to delegates about his goals and vision for the future of the profession and how this might impact on sole practitioners. The regulatory theme continued with an update session by Amanda Charlton from the Legal Ombudsman and a Regulatory Review by Linda Lee, Chair of the Law Society Regulatory Affairs Board. Delegates were also addressed

The weekend of 16th – 18th May 2014 saw approximately 200 sole practitioners and their

guests descend upon The Portsmouth Marriott Hotel to take part in the SPG 19th Annual Conference. The weekend

Sushila Abraham is a member of the Executive Committee and Conference Organiser.

The SPG Annual Conference is our flagship event to which we hope as many members as possible will come along to hear from top quality speakers, network and socialise with fellow sole practitioners. Sushila Abraham takes a look back at the May 2014 Conference held in Portsmouth

and gives us a brief taster of the forthcoming conference in May 2015.

“I am a regular delegate. Thank you as always for the time and effort you all give to SPG.”

“CPD points and a fun weekend.”

“Thoroughly enjoyable weekend – thank you!”


Despite the excellent CPD programme, littered as it was with appearances from the most key and senior personnel within our regulatory bodies, the pinnacle of the weekend for many was the Saturday evening SPG Annual Gala Dinner & Dance hosted aboard HMS Warrior, the first ironclad armour plated warship of the British Royal Navy commissioned in 1860 and at dock as a museum ship at Portsmouth Historic Dockyard. We were privileged and honoured to have the company of many distinguished guests including Law Society Vice-President, as he was then, Andrew Caplen, President of CILEX (and SPG member) Stephen Gowland and Michael Gillman, Chairman of the Solicitors Benevolent Association to name but a few. We could not have asked for a more perfect evening as guests sipped champagne, whilst

by fellow sole practitioner, Stephanie Pritchett, who gave a very practical and detailed talk on Data Protection and this was followed by some extremely expertise black letter law updates in the areas of family law and employment law.

Sunday’s CPD programme included an examination of the Legal Education and Training Review and the future impact of this upon continuing competence with Chris Kenny, Chief Executive of the Legal Services Board, Professor Julian Webb, Head of the LETR Research Team and SRA Director of Education and Training Julie Brannan. Joanne Cracknell of Corre addressed delegates with an update on the role of COLPS and COFAS, followed by an update on the PI insurance market by Richard Brown and a look at cybercrime and financial stability.

watching a glorious sunset on the deck before going below deck to enjoy a sumptuous four-course meal and after-dinner address by Patrick Keefe, former Royal Navy Commander and the Commander at HMS Nelson. A charity raffle raised over £500 for the ‘Singing for the Brain’ group of the Alzheimer’s Society and the evening ended with the opportunity to either explore the ship or deck by moonlight, or dance the night away to hits of the 60’s, 70’s, 80’s and 90’s played by the live 7-piece band.

The weekend was a resounding success, not only providing delegates with 8 hours of CPD at an affordable and realistic cost, but also the opportunity to socialise, network and connect with other sole practitioners who understand the unique challenges that we face together as the sole practitioner community.

“Meeting like-minded people, CPD and fab dinner dance.”

“Networking, CPD, general joie de vivre!”

“Very good conference – good break from office”


We really hope that all those of you who attended in 2014 enjoyed yourselves and will be coming along to the SPG 20th Annual Conference....we certainly received lots of excellent, encouraging and constructive feedback and we thank you for this. Your feedback, both good and bad, helps us to improve the conference and business programme year on year and we always listen and act on them.

And for all those of you who didn’t make it in 2014, don’t worry.....just don’t miss out in 2015!! Put it in your diary now......”

“Good content and opportunity to meet and discuss issues

with other solicitors.”

“Networking, updates, stimulating ‘refresher’ and support”

“A very engaging conference and I thank you for your work. I

look forward to attending the next conference in 2015.”

“Keeping up with current developments, meeting peers.”

“Look forward to next year.”

“.....1 st class conference. The next one will be very hard to follow!!!”

SPG 20TH ANNUAL CONFERENCE 20158TH – 10TH MAY 2015

ESCAPE TO THE FORESTYes, we can finally tell you that the

SPG 20th Annual Conference will be held from 8th – 10th

May 2015 in the centre of England, in Warwickshire, in the beautiful Forest of Arden Marriott Hotel & Country Club, situated in an area with much history and the setting for Shakespeare’s play ‘As You Like It‘. Not only that, but our Annual Gala Dinner will be held in the equally beautiful Birmingham Botanical Gardens. It promises to be a weekend not to be missed and we hope that the central location will be convenient to most of you. Don’t forget that just because you will no longer be required to log a minimum of 16 hours CPD each year, you will still have to continue to demonstrate your ongoing competence as an important part of running your practice.

So place the dates in your diary now.....and your friends and colleagues diaries too! You may even decide to extend your stay and treat yourself to a long weekend away. There will certainly be plenty for you to do, situated so close to Warwick Castle, Birmingham, Coventry, Cadbury World and Shakespeare Country! Further details, including booking details will follow. This year you will also be able to book and pay for your place online, making life just that little bit easier.



COMPLIANCE | RISK | REGULATION

CORRE is a professional compliance, risk and regulatory consultancy offering practical, commercial and cost effective guidance to law firms.

CORRE’S services include:

For more information on how CORRE is helping COLPs and COFAs contact: Stephen Rawlings on 0844 800 3089 or email us at: [email protected]

The Corre Partnership LLP St Catherine’s Court | 3rd Floor | Berkeley Place | Bristol | BS8 1BQ |T 0844 800 3089 | F 0117 929 9845www.thecorrepartnership.com | [email protected]

Registered in England and Wales No. OC369696. Registered Office: 51 Lime Street, London EC3M 7DQ. The Corre Partnership LLP is part of the Willis Group.

• COLP and COFA support through CORRE Essentials – a monthly subscription service designed specifically for solicitors

• Regulatory Healthcheck Audit

• Regulatory Advice

• Financial Compliance

• Strategy and Management

• Risk Management - Risk Reviews

• Lexcel Consultancy

• Training

• Specific services for Banks and Insurers

COLP and COFA Support to Help You Manage Your Risk

24702 Solo A4 Advert_Corre.indd 1 16/09/2013 16:25:33


APPEALS AFTER IMMIGRATION ACT 2014: THE WINNERS AND LOSERS

Is this latest legislation a good or a bad thing? Joanne Rothwell, immigration barriser, explores the impact.

One very important change that will affect many of our clients and the way we run our cases are that any grounds for asylum or human rights protection must first be considered by the Secretary of State for the Home Department. The old practice of raising all human rights issues in the grounds of appeal will no longer be permitted. Therefore it is absolutely imperative that any asylum or human rights issues are now raised in detail, so that all the information is before the Secretary of State for the Home Department at the outset.

A paradox of section 15 of the Immigration Act 2014 is that lawful migrants who state that they satisfy the Immigration rules, but whose applications are refused will be left without a right of appeal. They will be forced to make Judicial Review applications which are protracted, riskier and do not merit a full review of the merits of the case or a substitution of the decision by the Judge. They face the issue of costs being awarded against them.

In contrast illegal entrants and “overstayers”, who previously had no right of appeal, will have a right of

Part 2 Section 15 Immigration Act 2014 provides

for the most major changes in appeals to the First Tier Tribunal in more than a decade. The number of appealable decisions set out in section 82 Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 is significantly reduced and there will only be appeals in areas where there are rights which are protected by International obligations.

The only types of decisions that can be appealed under the new regime are those that raise refugee or human rights protection issues. The right of appeal against refusals of EEA rights are expected to remain.

Therefore the number of appeals to the First Tier Tribunal will decrease significantly, but the numbers of those applying to the Entry Clearance Manager for “Administrative review” and/or to the Upper Tribunal for an application for Judicial Review will increase.

For clients who previously had a right of appeal, but whose only remedy will be Judicial Review, their leave to enter may not be automatically extended by section 3 C of the Immigration Act 1971 and the statutory bar to removal will not be effective.

Joanne Rothwell is a Barrister at No 5 Chambers and is a specialist in Immigration law. No 5 have chambers in London, Birmingham, Bristol and Leicester and who were recently voted Lawyer Magazine “Chambers of the Year 2014”.

appeal, as they will mostly be raising human rights grounds. It appears from the new appeal system they will be granted a right of appeal, unless it is certified as manifestly unfounded or could already have been argued. The Secretary of State for the Home Department may use these provisions more frequently.

The first phase of introduction of the Immigration Act 2014 came into force on 28 July 2014, which introduced a definition of the public interest requirement in appeals and also out of country appeals for those who have been issued criminal deportation orders.

On 20 October 2014 the second phase of Immigration Act 2014 came into force. As of that date there are changes to appeal rights for Tier 4 Students. The costs provisions also came into force, which gives power to Tribunal Judges to award costs against both the Secretary of State and appellants, so make sure that directions are adhered to, as otherwise late service of documents, could attract a costs order.

Joanne Rothwell

6.00 am on the day the Final results were published in the Times and, having stayed up all night, they were much too tired to truly celebrate or just skulk away.

It was a miracle, because our lad passed the Finals first time , as he had with the Intermediate exams. However, what broke his heart was failing the extra three day Honours exam, which he foolishly had elected to take whilst on a high upon completing with a flourish the last of the Finals papers.

Our lad and his mates were due to be conscripted into the armed forces when the Finals were over; having been deferred from the time they took articles.

This was the period of fighting terrorists or freedom fighters, depending how you viewed it, in Malaya and other parts of the Empire.

The lad, as a result of his amazing career as an Army Cadet, had the ear of the Squadron Commander of ‘A’ Squadron, Royal Horse Guards – Armoured Fighting Vehicles Division. This was in spite of having driven a Daimler MK 11 Scout Car into a ditch, almost cutting in half the vehicle commander with the QF2 PDR cannon that was equipped with a Little John muzzle. The incline was such that it had almost put the muzzle into the ground, which would have swung the shell chamber breach in an arc inside the turret. That was how the lad made friends and influenced people!!

The thing the lad liked about the Scout Car was the 5 pre-select gears, which it had in forward and in reverse. The

The lad has to attend at Lancaster Gate for some 6 months of lectures before taking the Finals....or maybe

it was 9 months, it seemed an eternity?

By way of light relief, the lads, having seen one of their number parking a brand new Mini outside Law School decided it should be displayed on the entrance level above the Lancaster Gate Church’s many steps. Some ten or so lads picked the Mini up from the road and carried it precariously up those steps and left it outside the Church for all to see. Our lad never found out how it got back on the roadway!

The pressure was intense. It was winter and one day our lad, with his closest mates, retired to the local pub for a sandwich and a beer before the afternoon session. They made the mistake of sitting close to the open fire discussing who had a nervous breakdown, who had almost succeeded in committing suicide and who had just thrown in the sponge and left. The heat of the fire, the fear, the panic and the thought of the exam was too much to bear. The lad suffered and continued to suffer for many years from claustrophobia.

The lad even had a nightmare where he was running out of breath on Hampstead Heath being chased by Settled Land Act entails, who were determined to get him barred!

The reason for such stress was the fact that, if you failed the Finals, you did not just have to take the papers in which you failed, instead you had to take all the papers again and, in the interim, laws do change as do the exam questions so it was back to Law School or employ a Tutor for the unlucky ones.

It is amazing how, in our profession, when you are having so much fun and enjoying life and work, the powers-that-be find some way of screwing with you; so the fun goes and so does the joy of “just being.”

The lad and his mates had arrived at the Times building in Fleet Street at

lad liked that feature because, as soon as the enemy was sighted, the vehicle could speed backwards as fast as it approached, thus avoiding conflict. A bit like mediation!

Our lad was offered a three year commission in the Household Cavalry but, having considered the fact that he could not afford the mess fees in such a classy regiment, when the time came he sadly declined.

Whilst waiting for his “call up” the lad joined his first firm, the partners being two bachelor brothers who shared the old family mansion but never talked to each other. The practice worked exclusively

for the Official Receiver in Bankruptcy with one brother acting for the southern area and the other for the north and never did the twain meet. Their lunch was taken at the Law Society after which they each fell asleep under their open newspapers at opposite ends of the Reading Room returning to the office separately late in the afternoon.

When his call up papers arrived, the lad attended his medical

(cough please!) which he passed Grade A and to his amazement he was asked if he really wanted to do a two year stint as a private, especially as he did work of National Importance (Official Receiver – you must be joking!).

It was the last intake of National Service personnel; so thinking of his £950 per year, getting up at 5 am each day, washing in cold water, bromide in the tea, drilling (which was previously his to command), our lad said the obvious – “My Official Receiver needs me!! Your kind offer to pass on National Service is accepted”.

PARt V1

Is dedicated to my faithful readership (all three of them, one being John, our Editor’s Dad – God bless him!) and will be the life and times of a newly qualified Solicitor in the early 1960’s.

THE LIFE AND TIMES OF AN ARTICLED CLERK IN THE LATE 1950’s – PART V

(If you find this boring then email me and there won’t be a Part V1)



Talking to the SRA

As well as a change of CEO, the Chairman of the SRA Board will change on 1st January 2015 with the appointment of Enid Rolands who is already a Board member. The combination of these changes are likely, in my view, to create a change of direction with new policies affecting the profession. At the SPG Annual Conference in May of this year, Paul Philip stated (and has repeated it since in the press) that he is keen to review the burden of regulation upon small firms and SPs as soon as possible. Although we have enjoyed the company of these meetings with the SRA for many years now it is still a challenge to be made privy to SRA’s thoughts on potential changes to regulation as they affect SPs in advance of them actually happening.

An example, recently, was the publication of four consultation papers almost simultaneously a few months ago which carried a lot of potential impact for SPs. For a committee such as the SPG National Executive, comprised entirely of volunteers, such short notice to deal with significant consultation papers imposes a lot of pressure. I am pleased to say that due to the immediate application and hard work of a number of members of the National Executive, comprehensive responses on these consultation papers were filed with the SRA and these are published elsewhere in this Journal. One of the papers concerned the recent proposals

The National Executive Committee of the SPG have a standing working party which meets up

regularly with the SRA, a small group comprising of myself, Sushila Abraham, Hamish McNair and Lubna Shuja (one of our two representatives on The Law Society Council). The objective of these meetings is to interface at an informal level with specialist members of the SRA. We always find these meetings constructive.

This is an update since my last article in SOLO in Spring 2014.

There have been a lot of changes at the SRA following the arrival of Paul Philip as Chief Executive and the retirement from that office of Anthony Townsend in February this year. Quite a number of the senior posts and the different Directorates have changed. It is always difficult to get a contact point on a particular issue, so if any SP has a problem identifying the department or the person dealing with a particular issue, they should contact myself or one of the other members of our small group who should be able to identify the head of the Directorate concerned and thereby track to the person/department concerned for a particular issue.

to change the rules concerning minimum cover for professional indemnity insurance; the SPG’s view point was rapidly followed by other interested parties including those of leading professional indemnity insurance brokers. Despite adverse comment from SPG and leading insurance brokers the SRA have decided the change should go ahead. The matter is currently being considered by the Legal Services Board.

“Whilst superficially attractive, the idea of reducing the minimum

cover required opens up a can of worms.”

Whilst superficially attractive, the idea of reducing the minimum cover required opens up a can of worms. On the face of things, an SP might be tempted to spend less by way of premium on lower minimum cover but the “chickens will come home to roost” when there is a spot light on the practitioner’s actual terms of cover within the context of a claim.

David Leigh-Hunt is an Executive Committee Member and fronts the SRA liaison sub-committee which meets regularly with the SRA

David Leigh-Hunt, front man for the SRA liaison sub-committee of SPG, brings us up to date with our latest discussions with the SRA and

current regulatory issues that affect sole practitioners.

“The combination of these changes are likely, in my view, to create a

change of direction with new policies affecting the profession.”


Another issue on which our working group has challenged SRA thinking is a proposal to marginalise accountant’s reports which currently have to be submitted by every firm on an annual basis. I suspect the basic reason for wanting to do this is the administrative burden of handling so many reports of thousands of practices every year. For myself, I find it a comfort that an independent chartered accountant audits my book keeping every year and is able to give a professional insight into the way I manage things. I understand the SRA current thinking is that a COLP or COLFA could sign a certificate each year stating the practice books are in order; I cannot see how this could possibly be an independent view.

On a better note, the SRA have now decided that residual client balances can be disposed of without recourse to the SRA where the sum does not exceed £500. For many years, the limit has been £50. Also on a good note, the SRA have decided to change the eligibility for payments out of the Compensation Fund to apply to only individuals or small businesses and charities and trustees where their income and trust value does not exceed £2 million; the object of this change is to cut out opportunity for large institutions such as lenders and high street trading concerns to be able to make a claim on the fund.

Another matter which currently has the SRA’s attention is the issue of promoting diversity amongst solicitor’s practices. In June this year, the SRA published their response to an Independent Comparative Case Review by Professor Gus John earlier this year. The SRA deduced information from this that shows that whilst on the one hand black minority ethnic solicitors continued to be disproportionately over-represented in the system, there was no evidence of

direct discrimination in the way which the SRA applied its regulatory policies and processes. I am aware that there are many who disagree with this view point and/or finding. The SRA are looking more closely at this in conjunction with various groups representing BME solicitors including SPG. On a wider front, the SRA have been at pains to gather diversity information at the behest of the Legal Services Board but at recent meetings our working group have had with the SRA there does not appear to be any coherent view on the use to which this information will be put. I think, in simple terms, the point is that solicitors practices have to run like any other commercial concern and move with market forces; particularly in the case of SP practices, where resources are limited, where it is simply not possible to apply a blanket policy in respect of staff, clients and work types which is a product of a particular policy on diversity.

We met with the SRA on the 13th June this year. We had a most interesting talk and discussion with the SRA Chief Adjudicator, Nabila Zulfiqar. Much of the regulatory process of the SRA is applied through the process of the three in-house adjudicators where the fault of a practitioner does not warrant the expense, time and trouble of formal proceedings in the SDT. The SRA proposal to obtain authority to increase the level of fines which they can impose will be administered by this department. Apart from discipline matters, this department makes decisions on character and suitability of applicants for ABS Licences, the waiver of any rule or regulation, conditions on practising certificates and applications to the Compensation Fund where the value is more than £100,000. The department also deals with the issue of material and non-material breaches which have been brought into focus by the creation of responsibilities for COLPS and COLFAS.

We asked again for written guidance as to how a practitioner is to determine the difference between a material and non-material breach. The SRA current thinking is that provided a practitioner applies a reasoned and honest

approach to the concept of Outcomes Focused Regulation then the practitioner can make their own decision on whether an incident in their office is a material or non- material breach. It is only in the case of the former, where there is a potential issue, that it should be reported to the SRA. These are breaches which pose a serious risk either to the integrity of the practice concerned or the integrity of particular client’s affairs.

At the same meeting, we had an extensive discussion on training generally. The SRA are focused on this at present following the outcome of the LETR review at the beginning of this year. The resulting new regulations came into force on the 1st July 2014 setting out requirements for education in contentious and non-contentious matters. From the 1st August 2014, the requirement for a minimum wage for trainees has been amended so that the minimum wage to be paid to a trainee is the national minimum wage. This has come about due to the difficulty of practices being able to afford trainees wages at the previously fairly high level but I think it remains to be seen whether this improves the quality of training and opportunities for aspiring lawyers to enter the profession.

We asked again about the SRA bringing into their review the commercial aspects of trainee relationships with their principals, as at present the SRA restrict themselves only to regulatory matters. I have a number of years experience involved with the helpline under the Solicitors Assistance Scheme where I have had many calls relating to the set up for trainees in individual practices. A lot of that is not good news. Speaking personally, I think the SRA should have more involvement in the commercial side of things.

Another issue on training is whether the concept of mandatory time spent by a trainee in an office should be continued or whether, in effect, it should be possible to train as a lawyer from college or to be book-based. We argued against that but understand that no conclusion has yet been reached to abandon the traditional form of a traineeship involving a specific amount of time in an office.


Some sole practitioner solicitors may remember a very refined lady by the name of Stephanie Ella Maureen Currie M.B.E. (otherwise known as Stella Currie) who attended the SPG Annual Conferences for a number of years, the last one being in 2012. Prior to her retirement, Stella ran a sole practice in the Barbican and was a member of the City of London Corporation. In her latter years, she was Chairman of its Education Committee and a leading Governor of the Guildhall Girls School, as well as being a leading light in the City of London. Had she lived in a later era, Stella may easily have preceded the footsteps of Fiona Woolf by becoming Lady Mayoress. Sadly, Stella passed away in December 2013 after a battle with cancer and so almost one year on from her death, SPG wanted to honour and remember the wonderful contribution to sole practice and the business world made by this lovely lady and much-missed member of our Group.

Another move by the SRA is to abolish the current CPD system whereby the practitioner carries out self-assessment of continuing education which the practitioner has under taken during a relevant CPD year. The SRA consider that the system is observed as much in the breach as otherwise and had thoughts of requiring COLPS in each firm every year to certify that adequate training has been arranged for all members of the firm commensurate with the type of work the firm does. So far as I can see, there is no come back if a COLP incorrectly signs a set of figures! The new proposals will come into force on 1st November 2016 although firms can voluntarily move to the new approach from April 2015.

“....if a practitioner wants to create an agreement with a client to be paid on the practitioner’s

invoice by instalments which are going to last beyond 12 months.....

there may be consumer credit problems....”

Some other matters were drawn to our attention. Legislation on consumer credit interfacing with SRA procedure needs to be watched. In simple terms, if a practitioner wants to create an agreement with a client to be paid on

the practitioner’s invoice by instalments which are going to last beyond 12 months from the date of issue of the invoice, there may be consumer credit problems as solicitors do not have a general authority to carry out transactions of a financial services nature. This is a situation where a formalised agreement is made between the practitioner and the client and not simply where a debt is unpaid. The trick is to make sure the instalments do not exceed 12 months.

A further item the SRA wanted us to note was the red alert system for whistle blowing. They are keen to encourage people in solicitors firms to engage in this and an anonymous telephone line is provided for this purpose. The number is 0345-850-0999 and there is an email as well – [email protected]. My thought on this is that it has good intentions but it could have potential for undermining staff relations inside a solicitors firm.

The accent is now on supervision of practices as a preventive measure to avoid situations getting out of hand so that the SRA have to engage in interventions. There are about 100 people in the Supervision Department of the SRA; a large proportion are engaged in supervising firms who seem to be on the danger list but in theory every practice has a “minder”. In the large majority of cases it is anticipated that

there would be little contact between the minder and the practice because all is well. Practical supervision will run from the one extreme of a telephone call or a letter once a year to regular weekly/monthly visits to the firm’s offices by the supervisor.

It is to be noted that after a lot of hot fuelled debate on the proposed QASA scheme (quality of criminal advocates) and considerable challenge from the Bar, the Court of Appeal has now dismissed the Judicial Review of the Scheme and the SRA are now pressing on with implementation. Information about a revised timetable for registration is expected to be issued shortly.

The next meeting of our small group with the SRA is projected for early December 2014 so if any reader has any points which they would like us to specifically raise at this meeting or any other meeting please let me know.

I would like to conclude by acknowledging the gratitude of my small group for the facility for these meetings provided and organised over many years by Lesley Miller, External Relations Officer for the SRA; she has now retired from the SRA we did enjoy her company and the help she gave us in putting together an agenda etc and running meetings which she arranged with specialist members of the SRA to attend and discuss matters with us.

With sadness


LOCAL GROUP CONTACTS & FORTHCOMING MEETINGSSPG ANNUAL CONFERENCE 2015

8 – 10 May 2015 – The Forest of Arden Marriott Hotel & Country Club, Maxstoke Lane, Meriden, Birmingham, CV7 7HR. Booking forms and programme details will be available shortly.

BIRmInGhAm/wESt mIDLAnDS

Jimmy Ogunshakin – Mayflower Solicitors2 Gatsby Court, 170 Holliday Street, Birmingham, B1 1TJTel: 0845 233 0003 Email: [email protected]

BoURnEmoUth

Lauren Annicchiarico – French Law MattersSuite1, First Floor, Richmond House, Richmond Hill, Bournemouth, BH2 6EZTel: 01202 355480 Email: [email protected]

BRIStoL

Stephanie Pritchett – PritchettsThe Moat, 1a Rosery Close, Westbury-on-Trym, Bristol, BS9 3H Tel: 0117 307 0266 Email: [email protected] or [email protected]

LOCAL GROUPSgroup meetings provide an opportunity for SP’s to network and support each other, obtain free CPD and cross refer business to each other. In the challenging times we are now facing, it is even more important for SP’s to meet and discuss how they can use their unique skills to provide effective competition to the bigger organizations.

The Annual SPG Conference is an excellent opportunity to meet other Sole Practitioners and I would urge you to attend as I am sure you will find it to be invaluable. The Annual SPG Conference 2015 is taking place on 8th – 10th May 2015 at the Forest of Arden Marriott Hotel & Country Club, Birmingham. Further details and booking forms will be available shortly. I look forward to seeing you there!

SPG has a number of local SP groups around the country and details of all SPG Local Group

Representatives, and any forthcoming local group meetings are given below.

If you are interested in attending a local group meeting in your area, then please contact your nearest Local Group Representative for further information about the next meeting. Details of all Local Group Contacts and local group meetings are given below and can also be found on our website at www.spg.uk.com.

If you are interested in setting up a Local Group within your own area, then do contact me as I may be able to assist you with the initial mail shots, expenses, venue and speaker. Local

mrs Lubna Shuja (Council Member and Local Groups Co-Ordinator)

Legal Swan Solicitors, 1st Floor, 168 Hamstead Road, Birmingham, B20 2QR

Tel: 0121 551 7866 or Email: [email protected]

Lubna Shuja is a member of the Executive Committee, Council Member and Local Groups Co-ordinator.

EASt EnGLAnD (InCLUDES SUffoLk, noRfoLk, CAmBS & noRth ESSEx)

Nigel George – George & Co SolicitorsOrchard Vale, Borley Green, Bury St Edmunds, IP30 9RWTel: 01449 737 582 Email: [email protected]

If you would like to attend a meeting in this area, please contact Nigel George who will be happy to arrange one if there is interest.

EASt mIDLAnDS

Tina Attenborough – Attenborough LawHawthorns, The Close, Derby, DE22 2ADTel: 01332 558 508 Email: [email protected]

Forthcoming East Midlands Local Group Meetings:

• 10 December 2014 at 10.00am Please note that this meeting will also include Christmas Lunch. Yew Lodge Hotel, Kegworth, Derbyshire. Please contact Tina Attenborough for further details on [email protected]

hAmPShIRE/DoRSEt/wILtShIRE

Kirsten Woodgate – Woodgate & Co95-95 Palmerston Road, Southsea, Portsmouth, Hants, PO5 3PRTel: 02392 835790 Email: [email protected]

kEnt

Hilary Underwood – H A Underwood Solicitors Underwood House, 32 Broadway, Sheerness, Kent, ME12 1TP Tel: 01795 663555 Email: [email protected]

LonDon CEntRAL/ESSEx

Michael Whittingdale – WhittingdalesSouth Wing, Chancery House, 53-64 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1QUTel: 020 7831 5591 Email: [email protected]

noRth EASt

John Scott – Reed Ryder & Meikle19 Northumberland Square, North Shields, Tyne & Wear, NE30 1QDTel: 0191 257 3222 Email: [email protected]

noRth wESt

Gareth Williams – GHW Solicitors19 Bolton Street, Ramsbottom, BL10 9HUTel: 01706 827042 Email: [email protected]

SURREY

Margaret A. Ilori – Capulet SolicitorsLink House, 140 The Broadway, Tolworth, Surrey KT6 7HT Tel: 0208 397 6949 Email: [email protected]

SUSSEx

Michael Bance Email: [email protected]

thAmES VALLEY

Chris Stocker – Stocker & Co10a Buttermarket, Thame, Oxon,OX9 3EWTel: 01844 216995 Email: [email protected]

YoRkShIRE

Fleur Hinton – Guy & HintonLevel 5, 2 Wellington Place, Leeds LS1 4APTel: 01133662030 Email: [email protected]



AUSTRIAN ADVENTURES

a surfeit of dumplings and pork pate, leaving John to succeed him and as King of England.

Schloss Dürnstein is most definitely somewhere to visit if you like vertical climbing. The village is a tourist shop paradise but I can recommend a plate (BIG) of wild hand-picked mushrooms at a vineyard by the village entrance to be washed down with half a litre of white wine. Don’t even ask what grapes are used to make the wine as there are too many to consider the question worthwhile.

If you are in the area you do need to go to Slovakia and the capital of Bratislava, where, in a boulevard full of alfresco restaurants, you can have a (BIG) plate of Spaghetti Vongole but advisably only a quarter litre of white wine in case you are driving.

At this time of year, Austria puts on one of the largest events that I have ever been to, the famous St Margarethen Opera Festival attracting over 200,000 opera lovers every year, where bizarre rock formations on Europe’s largest natural stage form the impressive backdrop for an opulent opera production. This is one of Europe’s oldest quarries, close to the town of

Austria has much to answer for and now I find that is where our King Richard, Richard Coeur de

Lion aka Richard the Lion Heart, was imprisoned for a couple of years in the Schloss Dürnstein and held to ransom by that money opportunist Graf Dürnstein; who presumably stayed at home when Richard and other brave knights took themselves off to the Third Crusade.

Richard left his wicked brother John to look after England and followed (or was it led?) his young cousin Phillip the King of France to the Holy Land, to fight yet again to regain Jerusalem from the Saracens.

Due in part to the infighting between the Pope, who sweet-talked Philip to finance and lead the Third Crusade, and the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire (strangely a German Emperor), the Crusaders came off badly and many travelled or limped home to Europe via Constantinople, the Balkan States and Austria.

Not that long after returning to England Richard died of his wounds and probably

Rust, and accommodates 5,000 or so seats and its natural stage could easily contain ten double decker busses parked end to end. The stage was often lit by jets of baskets of flames. In the First World War the quarry was used as a massive prison camp to hold the Russian captured soldiers and due to its depth I doubt many, if any, were able to escape.

This year’s event was the opera Aida, set in the heyday of Egypt. The cast must have been some 300 persons comprising choir, ballet dancers, soldiers, slaves, captives, priests, hand maidens, servants, courtiers and principals. There were also horses, chariots and carts of booty.

I counted more than four costume changes for just the soldiers and priests and all were magnificent, the costumes, arms and armour historically accurate and varied.

At road level were statues of Horus and other Gods lit by flood lights with flaming braziers. Centre stage rear was a Sphinx that on occasions had a balcony and an exit to the stage floor, being fronted and flanked by two mobile half stage structures both back lit with the Nile flowing water or columns. At times, the Principals appeared amongst the columns and they were also projected mega-size on to a full granite wall of the quarry – an amazing and breathtaking sight!

Since the opera was four hours in length, at 10.30pm there was a massive firework display from road level whilst all the cast were on stage. It was interesting to see the soldiers on stage place their shields over their heads to ward off the sparks falling from the fireworks in the sky!

So.....if you want a unique experience try middle Europe; I was surprised what it has to offer in the summer time beyond Strauss waltzes, schnitzel and strudel.

Ian Lithman is an Executive Committee Member and one of SPG’s Council Members. We are sorry but for legal reasons we cannot provide a photograph of Ian wearing lederhosen!

Ian Lithman, Executive Committee and Council Member shares the joys of his summertime retirement travels with Strauss, schnitzel, strudel, history and opera!.


FRUSTRATED CONVEYANCERS – SPG LAUNCHES A

CONVEYANCING LOBBYING GROUP

The ever-increasing restrictions and pressures brought

to bear on sole practitioner conveyancers is one of the most frequently raised issues amongst the SPG membership and it is an issue that SPG has been fighting against for a number of years. Kem Masinbo-Amobi, SPG’s Chairwoman and a conveyancing practitioner herself has set up a lobbying group in a further, fresh approach to engage with the major lending institutions and political parties in a bid to raise the profile of this serious issue which affects not just practitioners but the client’s freedom of choice. The aim is not merely to engage, but to positively influence and actively change the practices and policies that directly and adversely impact upon sole practitioners. SPG has sent out initial letters and is engaging in initial meetings with relevant bodies and organisations.

If you would like to participate in the lobbying group, please contact Hilary Underwood at [email protected].

Please reply to:

SPG

c/o Underwood House

32 Broadway

Sheerness

Kent ME12 1TP

Inspiring, leading and representing Tel: 01795 663555

solicitor sole practitioners Fax: 01795 664666

Solicitor Sole Practitioners Group

SPG – Inspiring, leading and representing solicitor sole practitioners

For further information please contact Hilary Underwood SPG Co-ordinator

E-mail: [email protected]

Website : www.spg.uk.com

Council of Mortgage Lenders

Bush House, North West Wing

Aldwych London WC2B 4PJ 25th September 2014

Dear Sir/Madam

Re : Sole Practitioner’s Independent Lobbying Group

We are writing to introduce ourselves as an independent group of sole practitioner

solicitors who all specialise in the practise of conveyancing and who therefore

consider ourselves to be experts and specialists in the field.

We wish to inform you that we have formed an independent lobbying group in light of

the specific challenges that sole practitioners continue to face as a result of the manner

in which they are viewed and treated by the primary lending organisations in the UK.

There are approximately 5,000 sole practitioner solicitor firms within the UK, of

whom a significant number specialise in the practise of conveyancing. The decision

by a large proportion of major lending institutions to exclude sole practitioners from

their lending panels has undoubtedly not only had a severe adverse impact upon many

sole practitioners, but also upon members of the public whose fundamental right to

freely choose for themselves their own legal representation has been severely

impeded. As an initial step, we would wish to engage in a face-to-face meeting with yourselves

to discuss our concerns and would therefore initially request details of the appropriate

person within your organisation whom we should approach to arrange a meeting.

With kind regards and in anticipation of your assistance.

FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE

SPG INDEPENDENT LOBBYING GROUP


STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY – SOLE PRACTITIONER, LLP, LDP OR ABS?

Executive Committee Member, Karen Purdy, explores options for setting up and running an independent law firm.

About Karen Purdy

Karen Purdy set up Purdys Solicitors in 2003, as a niche private client firm. She is a sole principal and heads a team of specialist solicitors, advising on Trusts, Wills, Probate and Contentious Probate.

Karen graduated in Law from Trinity College, Cambridge and then studied at the College of Law in Guildford. Karen has practical and academic experience, having been a co-author of legal texts, presented seminars and is also a Member of the Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners (STEP).

Karen is a Committee Member and former Chairman of the Sole Practitioners Group (SPG). She’s also a regular contributor to the Business of Law Blog, for LexisNexis.

[email protected]

www.purdys-solicitors.co.uk

About the SPG

The Sole Practitioners Group (SPG) is a group representing and supporting sole practitioner solicitors in England and Wales. Now independent, they were previously a “Recognised Group” of the Law Society. SPG supports members through local groups, their website, organising conferences and publishing SOLO magazine.

www.spg.uk.com

2Subscribe today: Business of Law BlogFor independent lawyers

||

This guide is designed to give you the options for setting up an independent law firm. It’s been written by Karen Purdy of the Sole Practitioners Group – an experienced sole practitioner herself.

It’s the second in our series from the SPG giving tips to firms just starting out.

You can download the first report, Going Solo, on the what, how and why of setting up as a sole practitioner, on the Business of Law Blog.

The SPG’s Karen Purdy explores options for setting up and running an independent law firm.

Structural Integrity Sole Practitioner, LLP, LDP or ABS?

Subscribe today: Business of Law BlogFor independent lawyers

||

Introduction

Perhaps you are considering setting up your own law firm or are having a healthy re-evaluation of your firm’s structure? If you’re wondering what the pros and cons are of the different structures, hopefully we can guide you through to see what suits you!

People make choices based on tax, based on how comfortable they feel regarding liability and all sorts of other reasons. In October 2011, the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) introduced outcomes-focused regulation. They said that this:

“ replaces a detailed and prescriptive rulebook with a targeted, risk-based approach concentrating on the standards of service to consumers. There is greater flexibility for firms in how they achieve outcomes (standards of service) for clients. ”So, this gave scope for greater freedom in how you could structure your law firm, including the new Alternative Business Structures (ABS).

This guide will ask you some questions about your firm, and explore four potential options for establishing and growing your practice. Each area is based on experiences of those who’ve been there before, plus industry experts, to help guide you in deciding what’s right for you.


||

1. How many people are there?

Is it just you? That’s fine – there are still lots of options. You can be a recognised sole practitioner (i.e. you’re a sole trader), but you can also set up as a Limited Company where you are the sole director or you could be an LLP. An LLP needs two members, but you can be one and a company where you are the sole director can be the other member.

Personally, I really enjoy being a sole practitioner – it gives me the freedom to make decisions without a huge layer of management bureaucracy. Some SPs work entirely on their own, but you can have employees (solicitors and support staff), so it doesn’t have to be lonely! The Sole Practitioners Group has events, a LinkedIn forum and website to help provide support and there are some active local groups too.

www.spg.uk.com

2. Are some of the people involved non-solicitors?

• If they aren’t solicitors, but are other types of lawyers (barristers, notaries, licensed conveyancers, legal executives, patent and trade mark agents, law costs draftsmen) then the non-solicitors could form a variety of structures as an legal disciplinary practice (LDP). The SRA says:

“ An LDP is the phrase that David Clementi used to describe the first new type of practice permitted by the Legal Services Act. For consistency, we have continued to use the description. LDPs can be owned and managed by a combination of different types of lawyer, and up to 25 per cent non-lawyers. There can be no external ownership of an LDP. ”

(Although called a legal disciplinary practice, it could be a partnership or a company or an LLP. See the Law Society’s practice note online. )

• If they aren’t lawyers at all, then you’ll need an Alternative Business Structure (ABS).


||

3. How much will it cost?

How much you spend on marketing and any business premises etc is very much dependent on what you want to do and how many people are involved etc. However, one thing you must have is Professional Indemnity Insurance.

Richard Brown at insurance broker Willis (formerly Prime Professions) gives us his reflections:

“ The factual difference between becoming incorporated in any way be it Ltd/LLP/ABS and being classed as a sole practitioner or partnership is the requirement for levels of cover under the SRA minimum terms and conditions. SPs and partnerships are only required to carry £2m each and vary claim in cover whereas all other entities are required to have £3m each and every claim as a minimum. The increase in premium to go from £2m to £3m should be in the region of 35 to 40% of the £2m price.

This has the potential to change however as the SRA have recommended reducing the compulsory level of cover for all firms to £500,000. A decision by the Legal Services Board is awaited. If this does happen then it will be for each practitioner to assess and purchase the appropriate level for their firm. Some careful consideration (and advice) will be required!

The real issue perhaps is the attitude of insurers to one structure rather than another. The answer is that whilst they still have concerns around their exposure to non-payment of premiums and forced run-off cover, they are becoming more used to covering incorporated status firms and as such are becoming more relaxed.

The concerns they do have are tied up under the wording of the policy that they have to abide by and the constraints put on them under the SRA minimum terms. These mean that underwriters cannot cancel the policy if a business fails and indeed they have to provide six years of run-off cover if the business closes even if the premium is not paid. In addition, if claims are made then the insurer must also pay the excess payable under the policy even if the client does not, or cannot, reimburse them. Of course it is highly unlikely that any of these monies will be paid in such circumstances.

If the above were the case then underwriters would naturally look to how they could recover such premiums and excess. Where there is an SP or partnership then there is personal and joint and several liability, which therefore enhances greatly the chances of recovery. With corporate structures it is virtually certain that no recovery can be made. So from this point of view it will not be a surprise to hear that insurers prefer the traditional structure of sole trader or partnership. ”


||

4. What paperwork will I need?

In terms of SRA forms, there used to be different ones for setting up as an SP, but now there is one generic one for the firm, for the individuals and an additional one for corporate managers/owners available online.

To get your Professional Indemnity Insurance you will need a detailed business plan and, following on from Richard’s comments

“ underwriters are asking more and more to see the reports and accounts of firms and you should expect to be asked to provide these at incorporation. ”For each structure you will need bank accounts and if you aren’t going to hold client monies or hold very little you should apply for a waiver from the annual Accountants Report for Solicitors Accounts Rules purposes.

5. What about my liability and taxation?

When I converted from a sole trader to a limited company, it was a great thing to do for taxation, but along the way I got some pretty rubbish advice. Please learn from my mistake – find a firm that specialises in advising solicitors and is authorised to prepare the annual accountants report for solicitors accounts rules purposes.

James Knights, of Knights Lowe Chartered Accountants is an expert and he has set out some of the pros and cons and tax planning tips here for you over the next page.

One significant tax planning point that links all of the following is that a business generates goodwill as it trades. If this trade is carried out in a sole trader or partnership and then incorporates, the goodwill generated is recognised on incorporation and a payment can be made from the company to the sole trader for this goodwill. This payment is taxed via capital gains tax, usually at 10%. This tax rate is extremely low, and provides a very good tax planning opportunity. The obstacle to this is the additional administration burden of changing the SRA registration etc.


||


Conclusion

Hopefully that has guided you through the options and perhaps led you to some conclusions on what might be best for you…

The SRA say

“ We welcome innovative structures. Some innovation may, however, carry significant commercial risks. Whilst we cannot stop firms failing, our concern is whether applicants have tested their business model thoroughly and have thought through the implications for clients and the public interest should their firm experience financial difficulties. ”

It sounds intimidating, but ensuring that you have thought through how you ensure supervision of the work and who will take on each role within the firm is a practical way to make sure that you’re also adopting the most appropriate structure.

Taking advice from a specialist advisor is also high up the list of things to do - it gives you confidence to know that you can go off and focus on your job, helping clients.

And talking to fellow lawyers who have set up in different ways is really helpful. It is a frequent topic at SPG Conferences and on our LinkedIn forum. The Business of Law Blog also has a comment section where you can share your thoughts.

Best of luck, we look forward to hearing your success stories!


||

Sole Trader/Partnership

Pros • No formation costs, and no formal requirement to produce accounts and file them with any public body.

• Complete confidentiality of financial/accounting information.

• Any losses generated by the sole trader/partner can be set against other income in that tax year.

• Income is taxed on the individual’s tax return, and at their own tax rate, dependant on other income etc.

• Partnerships offer flexibility regarding profit shares, and internal organisation issues.

Cons • Profits are taxed at 40%+ if income is in excess of £32,010. The total profits are taxable, whether or not you have drawn it in the year.

• The individual are liable to the debts and other liabilities that may arise on the business.

Limited Liability Partnerships

Pros • Separate legal entity from its members.

• Tax transparent, and therefore offers the flexibility and some of the pros of a sole trader/partnership.

Cons • Limited liability means that formal Companies Act compliant accounts must be filed annually, along with the details of all members.

ABS

These are Law Society-defined entities, which will fall into the form of one of the above options for tax purposes.

Richard Brown’s reflections on ABS:

“ I think it is fair to say that when the idea of Alternative Business Structures was first proposed, underwriters had severe misgivings believing that this was possibly an opportunity for certain elements to be able to exert undue influence, control and pressure on a legal practice. In reality I think that they have come to the conclusion that it is in fact a positive development that has enabled experienced business managers to run legal firms from a position of equality and authority, thereby allowing solicitors to concentrate on practising the law. ”

Note: Limited Company

It’s very important to set up the company so that the memorandum and articles refer to the provision of legal services only. Your company shouldn’t also be able to sell insurance and baked beans! (Professional Ethics used to provide specimen memorandum and articles at the end of their recognised bodies leaflet and you should be able to get a precedent to cover this).

Limited Company

Pros • A company is a separate legal entity, and as such provides protection to the owners from the liabilities of the company.

• Shares in a company are generally transferable; therefore ownership of the business can change.

• Profits up to £300,000, are charged at 20%. Therefore undrawn profit can be sheltered in a company with a smaller tax charge of 20%, and this gives the possibility of extracting it at a tax efficient time for the individual, either via income or as a capital gain in the future.

• Corporation tax is payable 9 months after the year end, an individual is likely to be making payments on account towards their tax liability during the year.

Cons • Companies are required to formally incorporate, and produce accounts and records in line with Companies Act requirements. This therefore can be more time consuming and costly.

• First year losses can only be carried forward to offset against future profits.

• If all profits are drawn out of the company, at higher levels double taxation can occur as the company pays tax at 20% and the individual may then be taxed on their remuneration from the company at 40%. Giving an effective tax rate of above 40%.

• Being a separate entity, at incorporation the company has no assets, therefore if borrowing is required personal guarantees may be required.


||

About James Knights

James is a director of the family owned accountancy practice, Knights Lowe. Based in East Anglia with over 50 staff, the firm strives to provide a personal service, attention to detail and sound advice for large and small businesses. This involvement and experience in helping run a practice has given him an insight into how to help his clients, many of which are in similar position.

James deals with SRA reporting, audit and compliance as a responsible individual within the firm, combines both the necessary compliance work whilst still being able to provide a value added service to their clients.

Knights Lowe’s ethos is to be general accountancy practitioners, with all the necessary skills to help their clients with the complete range of services from the personal tax return to the statutory audit or SRA report, and everything in between.

[email protected]

www.knightslowe.co.uk

About Richard Brown

Richard is an Executive Director of Prime Risk Solutions a trading division of Willis Limited, he has specific responsibility for sole practitioners and manages the firm’s relationship with The Sole Practitioners Group (SPG). In addition Richard is heavily involved in Compliance and Regulation consultancy.

Richard has been a regular speaker at Law Society seminars and both the national conference of the SPG and regional group meetings. The advice that he has given covers risk management, where claims come from and how to approach renewal to achieve the best outcome.

[email protected]

www.willis.com


||

About LexisNexis

Over the past 200 years, LexisNexis has combined a deep understanding of the legal profession with technology innovation to help practitioners work more productively, advise with confidence and better manage their businesses.

For independent legal professionals, smaller law firms and sole practitioners, LexisNexis covers over 25 specialist areas of law, with online products, priced and tailored to suit your business needs. To find out more, visit www.lexisnexis.co.uk or call 0845 520 1144.

LawAuthoritative answers and essential updates from leading titles such as Butterworths and Tolley.

• Case Law• Legislation• Legal Developments• Commentary• Magazines & Journals

ToolsUnprecedented support from integrated tools, with pinpoint accuracy to maximize your time.

• Precedents• Practice Notes• Drafting Tools• Forms• Checklists

Business SupportPractice success, underpinned by tailored training, compliance and business guidance.

• CPD• Practice Management• Practice Compliance• Market Trends• Legal Blogs

About the Business of Law Blog

Independent lawyers and sole practitioners are under siege. With numerous regulatory and business challenges, who has the time to actually practice law?

Visit the Business of Law Blog where you will find expert commentary and a forum to exchange knowledge with other lawyers – to give your business the competitive advantage. This blog is packed with information, videos, downloads and free content to help you thrive.

Sign up and receive free updates on compliance, marketing and business strategy, useful tools and invitations to exclusive events. businessoflaw.lexisnexis.co.uk


||

A division of Reed Elsevier (UK) Ltd. Registered office 1-3 Strand London WC2N 5JR. Registered in England number 2746621. VAT Registered No. GB 730 8595 20. LexisNexis and the Knowledge Burst logo are trademarks of Reed Elsevier Properties Inc. © LexisNexis 2014 0614-102. The information in this brochure is current as of August 2014 and is subject to change without notice.

Found this useful? Sign up today for more.

Business of Law BlogFor independent lawyers

|twitter.com/BusinessofLawBlinkedin.com/company/lexisnexis-uk

businessoflaw.lexisnexis.co.uk

Eastern Creteold Stone Village Property sleeping 6

Close to Sitia and short drive from mediterranean Sea

Ideal for relaxing break

For further details please email [email protected]

Just when the Sole Practitioners Group and sole practitioners generally might have thought it was

safe to stop worrying about professional indemnity after the problems with Quinn and the unrated insurers, aggravation came forth from an unexpected and surprising source which has kept at least one of your committee members awake at night during the long hot summer.

Just when one was relaxing at the conference and enjoying the comforting words of the new Chief SRA Executive, little did one realise that his suggestions of easing the regulatory burden and cutting red tape would lead to potentially greater concerns amongst solicitors generally and sole practitioners in particular.

The idea was a laudable one: to reduce the amount of the minimum insurance cover to a figure decided upon by the practitioner. There were other associated relaxations but this was the main one.

What had not been thought through were the problems that this gave rise to, when set against the minimal benefit. The benefit was not based on a sliding scale of a pro rata reduction in the premium for the reduction in the cover. Insurers make it quite clear that the expenses of the policies fall in small claims on the lower end of the vast majority of policies. The big claims are newsworthy but do not amount to the major part of the payouts from the premiums.

For a reduction in half the cover there would not be a reduction of half ones premium or anything near that, but a minimal reduction. Does a practitioner, and particularly a sole practitioner without the support of partners, wish to have to wonder whether a once-in-a-

lifetime claim will come in which exceeds the insurance cover and potentially impacts upon the sole practitioners personal assets? I suggest that the majority of practitioners would pay that 10% to avoid that.

The remainder of the proposals which were quite detailed, were intended to be pushed through by the SRA before the annual renewal round was completed at the beginning of October. The Law Society and others and sole practitioners presented consultation responses to this effect. The SRA ignored the responses and said they would continue with the amendment in premium at least.

One would never expect to have been grateful for there being a first tier of legal regulation but The Legal Services Board as the overall regulator managed to find a formula to defer the amendments with the effect that they have not applied to this insurance round.

For those who wish to do so, the consultation responses drafted on behalf of SPG are set out in this edition of SOLO in case sole practitioner readers find them interesting.

Clive SuttonOctober 2014

PROFESSIONAL INDEMNITY INSURANCETHE LONG Hot SUMMER

Clive Sutton is a member of the Executive Committee, Honorary Treasurer and heads up the PII sub-committee.



SPG IN ACTION

Hilary Underwood is the SPG Co-ordinator, editor of SOLO and deals with matters concerning legal aid.

Martin Smith is Chair of the Practice Sub-Committee. He leads on and co-ordinates the Group’s responses to consultations.

Ian Lithman is a member of the Executive Committee and SPG Council Member.

Lubna Shuja is a member of the Executive Committee, SPG Council Member and Local Groups Co-ordinator.

Clive Sutton is a member of the Executive Committee, Honorary Treasurer and heads up the PII sub-committee.

SPG is constantly at work responding to the myriad of consultations issued by the SRA, LSB, MoJ and other bodies whenever those consultations concern the interests of sole practitioners. We thought you may wish to read some of the recent responses that we have submitted on behalf of the Group. We would always encourage you, however, to put in your own individual responses to important consultations to ensure that the sole practitioner voice is heard loud and clear! Forthcoming important consultations which impact on sole practitioners include:

SRA Regulation of consumer credit activities Closing Date 15 December 2014.

SRA Overseas Accounts Rules Closing Date 22 December 2014.

SRA Training for Tomorrow: A Competence Statement for Solicitors Closing Date 12 January 2015.

SRA Regulation of insolvency practice Closing Date 16 January 2015.

SRA Proportionate regulation: reporting accountant requirements Closing Date 28 January 2015.

SRA Separate Business Rule Closing Date 12 february 2015.

For further details on these consultations and how to respond, please see the consultation page of the SRA website at http://www.sra.org.uk/sra/consultations.page.

GEnERAL ConCERnS

• Thisresponsecanonlybeagenericone, given that the proposed model will have different impacts in different procurement areas. We have urged our membership to respond on an individual and personal basis, though wonder how many will do so given the short timescales provided for the consultation period (see further below).

• Weareawareoftheunpublisheddraft report by PA Consulting, from August 2013, which reached a negative conclusion and undermined the MOJ’s proposals, upon which a consultation has not been sought, this current consultation being limited to the two reports referred to above. The PA Consulting report has been entirely ignored.

• KPMGacknowledgedthatthey,attimes, relied upon assumptions and information provided by the MOJ or others and that such information was not tested.

• Theproposedmodelcombiningfeereduction and restructuring fails to take into account the existing fragility of the criminal legal aid market and downplays the high-risk nature of this strategy.

• Theproposalsarediscriminatoryto SP’s and smaller firms, including BAME firms and the proposals will have a disproportionate impact upon these firms, particularly as these firms tend to ‘specialise’ in criminal

This is the response of the Sole Practitioner’s Group to the Ministry of Justice’s (MOJ)

Consultation about the findings of Otterburn Legal Consulting (Otterburn) and KPMG, published in February 2014, on its proposals in respect of Criminal Legal Aid Contracts and, in particular, its decision as to the number of duty contracts to offer.

BRIEf DEtAILS ABoUt US

The Sole Practitioners Group (SPG) is a representative body and independent stakeholder group, providing professional and pastoral support, training and regulatory representation on behalf of all Sole Practitioner (SP) solicitors in England and Wales (which currently total approximately 5,000 practitioners, and approximately one-third of all law firms). Our mission statement is to inspire, lead and represent solicitor sole practitioners.

SPG is run by an Executive Committee made up of 15 diverse sole practitioner solicitors, which meets as a full committee on a quarterly basis together with specialist additional sub-committees. Membership of SPG is free of charge and benefits to members include a free bi-annual copy of the SPG journal SOLO, access to information and guidance from SPG’s current website www.spg.uk.com , the opportunity to attend an Annual Conference, regional seminars, the pastoral support of the Executive Committee and various commercial benefits and discounts.

work and are almost entirely reliant upon revenue from criminal legal aid work, without the broader spread of work available to larger firms.

• Wefailtoseehowtheproposedmodel can possibly ensure a sustainable criminal legal aid scheme for the future, not least of which will be the insufficient number of suppliers to meet demand, let alone viable suppliers – in particular, the proposed model will impact adversely and disproportionately upon sole practitioner (SP) and small firm suppliers, who will simply be unable to afford the significant investment required to run the larger duty contracts being proposed.

• Theproposedmodelfailstoprovidefor meaningful competition in future tendering exercises, particularly for SP and small firm suppliers.

• TheMOJwillnotbeabletomeetitsobligation of ensuring that anyone accused of a crime will have free access to a duty solicitor, particularly in more rural geographical areas where the populations legal needs are primarily met by SP and smaller firms.

• Inreality,thismeansthatclientswill not be able to choose their own solicitor, whether that be from within a large firm, their local high street, or potentially a practitioner with a particular niche specialism.

• Further,thosefirmswhodosuccessfully secure a contract will

MINISTRY OF JUSTICE CONSULTATION ON OTTERBURN & KPMG REPORTSSOLE PRACTITIONERS GROUP RESPONSE

OCTOBER 2014

Inspiring, leading and representingsolicitor sole practitioners


practitioners, who do not have the back-office/management staff on-hand to assist with this task, as a larger firm might. The views of SP’s are vital to ensuring that the MOJ has considered evidence from a wide range of practitioners from a wide geographical area.

• Onelikelyoutcomeisthedevelopment of a 2-tier criminal justice system, whereby those that can afford to pay for representation from their chosen solicitor, in their own geographical area will do so, and those who cannot afford this will be restricted to the ‘choice’ of an extremely limited number of providers, possibly at a location some distance away from them, which will inevitably lead to less-well prepared defences, little or no face-to-face contact with clients and overall a much-watered down of what we so smugly refer to as “free access to justice”.

• Thereisahugeriskthatwewillsimply create a mere facade of ‘access to justice’ without substance or real meaning for those unfortunate enough to find themselves in the midst of the criminal justice system where “innocent until proven guilty” should remain an essential part of freedom and democracy.

• Ouroverallimpressionisthedetermination of the MOJ to press ahead regardless of the conflicting evidence before it and we caution urgently and strongly against this – it is not safe to do so, and a completely different strategy is required if criminal legal aid contracting is to move forward without risk of disaster.

Question 1: Do you have any comments on the findings of the otterburn report, including the observations set out at pages 5 to 8 of his Report? Please provide evidence to support your views.

SPG would strongly echo the comments made by other bodies on the Otterburn report, in particular the Law Society and the London Criminal Courts Solicitors

be working for such poor rates as to inevitably impact upon the quality of the service provided to the client.

• Thisconsultationseeksviewsonan extremely limited aspect of the proposed model for criminal law contracting, this being the proposed number of duty contracts offered. However, this issue can only be properly examined in the light of a holistic approach to the impact of the whole model, not just this one limited aspect.

• Thereportsallexpressdoubtsas to the legal markets ability to consolidate in the manner required by the proposed model and question the longer-term sustainability of that model. Any difficulties experienced by the market in consolidating are magnified for SP and smaller firms.

• ForanSPfirm,therealityisthatifthey are unsuccessful in securing a Duty Provider Work contract, the firm will simply not survive, or not survive for long on Own Client Work alone. This will mean that SP and smaller firms are more likely than larger firms (who can be shored up by other departments) to be forced into closure by the impact of this model, which has wider implications upon access to justice and meaningful competition as a whole – if a client can only choose to instruct five firms instead of fifty, how can that be said to be any choice at all?

• Further,theproposalswillthereforecreate huge geographical gaps in the supplier base, which will also adversely impact meaningful access to justice.

• Wedonotbelievethattheconsultation period has been long enough to allow any extremely busy criminal practitioners already working under the enormous pressures created by the existing legal aid contract terms, the time to respond properly and in detail to this consultation, in a way which means the responses can be considered meaningful. This is a problem magnified for busy SP criminal

Association and Criminal Law Solicitors Association.

Otterburn examines at pages 5 – 8 of this Report the financial position of a sample of criminal law firms, and went on to set out its views on the fragile state of the criminal legal aid market and therefore the likely consequences of fee reductions. In broad terms, it found that very few firms would be able to invest in the changes needed for a larger duty contract and recruitment of new fee earners.

The contracts will require one full-time fee earner for every £83,000 of the contract value. This is supposedly based upon the MOJ’s aim to ensure that contracts are only awarded to ‘firms of substance’ that the LAA can have confidence in. Aside from the fact that this figure does not take into account the further 17.5% proposed fee cut, this requirement is adverse to all SP’s and small firms who may have never undertaken work to that significant contract value (the average likely to be in the region of £50 – £60,000) and therefore, by definition, means that the MOJ does not consider those firms to be ‘firms of substance’. The definition of a firm of substance should surely be a supplier with an excellent and proven knowledge-base and a history of excellent service to client’s, regardless of the size of the contract. Why does the MOJ insist on measuring quality by quantity, when invariably, in other areas of the legal market, the very opposite has proved to be the case?

Further, the costs of practice in London and the South East are significantly greater than other parts of the country and the effect of a further reduction in costs can be expected to be greater than on other urban areas of England and Wales.

In addition in rural areas with the distance and cost of travelling the number of firms undertaking criminal legal aid work is bound to reduce to the detriment of the client.


vast majority of SP and small firms, which will impact on the communities they currently serve, particularly those in more rural areas.

The report also assumes that costs and overheads will only increase in line with volume of work. That is incorrect. The duty contracts will require firms to service significantly larger geographical procurement areas, requiring those firms to create an office infrastructure to accommodate this. It would, in reality, be impossible for an SP firm to raise the finances to cover such expansion, even if an SP were inclined to change his/her business model to such a massive extent. Given that profit margins are already as low as 5%, and given the proposed 17.5% fee cuts, how could an SP be expected to or even capable of expanding – it is highly unlikely that banks would lend money in this very negative and almost nil profitability area of law.

This alone creates a barrier to SP firms and leaves it wide-open to larger firms, shored up by larger non-legally aided departments, to successfully secure the contracts offered.

Further, KPMG reported that firms would have to grow on average by one fee earner, or in some cases as many as 5.

The MOJ’s answer would be for SP’s to merge, consolidate and form Delivery Partnerships. Again, this is highly unlikely in practice. Most SP’s are SP’s for a reason – they may have had a poor experience in a previous partnership, they may have a particular ethos or work ethic which is better served by the freedom of working alone, or they may simply be trying to achieve more flexibility in their working lives and a better work/life balance which is often not served by senior-level involvement in larger organisations. This would also require extensive amounts of time in merger negotiations and further significant costs associated with the practical implications of merger and consolidation.

Question 2: Do you have any comments on the assumptions adopted by kPmG? Please provide evidence to support your views.

The report assumes that firms would be willing to give up as much as 50% of their current own client work in order to free up their capacity to undertake the huge levels of duty solicitor work required under the new contract. We find this to be extremely unlikely for all all firms, but particularly for SP’s. SP’s pride themselves on client-care, particularly where they serve a small and local area in which they may have an excellent reputation and on-going and long-standing relationships with clients, who ask for them by name. Own client work can also be the source of other aspects of legal work upon which SP’s may be reliant. Further, own-client work provides a certainty and guarantee of caseload generation, whereas duty slots do not – these may or may not generate work. We do not expect any SP’s to compromise their professional integrity and access to justice within the communities in which they serve by turning down clients who seek them out specifically for the sake of forced commercial expediency imposed by the MOJ. Further, if they did, they would potentially be forsaking the certainty of own client work within their business for the ambiguity of duty solicitor work.

KMPG have also wrongly assumed that all firms unsuccessful in securing a duty contract will still remain in the legal aid market with an own client contract only. That is a nonsense for most SP providers, who could not survive beyond the short-term on own client work alone. SP’s view duty work as inextricably linked with own client work, it replenishes own client work, and most firms would not survive if one is separated from the other. Firms could collapse within as little 6 months.

This then has a longer-term impact upon future tender rounds, as the only firms likely to survive in the long-term are those large enough to secure a duty contract under these proposals. Essentially, the MOJ will be culling the

Further consortia can have significant regulatory, insurance, supervisory and other problematic issues – often the precise reason why SP’s have opted to ‘keep it simple’. They should not be forced into an unsatisfactory business model for the sake of survival and commercial expediency – for practitioners already working for very little if no profit, to expect this is asking them to pay too high a price.

Further, the Delivery Partnership model is based on one predominant firm taking a large share of the work, rather than an equal or other partnership.

Question 3: Do you have any comments on the analysis produced by kPmG? Please provide evidence to support your views.

It stands to reason that should these proposals go ahead, and a significant number of firms drop-out of the legal aid market either immediately, or in the short-medium term, the work currently undertaken by those firms, both duty solicitor and own client work, will have to be absorbed by the successful firms. It would appear that little or no thought has been given to this. Given that the terms of the contract would already require significant expansion and up-scaling required to achieve compliance with the contract terms, it is highly questionable whether firms could grow within the short timescale required if there is not to be chaos and disruption in the geographical areas affected.

KPMG assessed that firms would need to make 20% efficiency savings in staff costs to break even. Given the already tight profit margins (0% – 5%), and given the additional workload of the high volume contracts, how can staff costs possibly be reduced, whether by salary cuts or redundancies?

Further, the MOJ has not considered the impact of salary cuts upon the quality of solicitors in the criminal legal aid market and the quality of the staff who support them.



Question 6: Do you have any other views we should consider when deciding on the number of contracts? Please provide evidence to support your views.

We would wholly endorse a consultation on the contents of the PA Consulting report.

This is an issue which the Government simply cannot afford to get wrong. If the MOJ forges ahead with the proposals and they fail, irreparable harm will have been done. Numerous firms will have closed in the process. The Government will not be able to bring them back into the market, it will be too late for that. What will the Government’s alternative to meet the resulting crisis and chaos be?

KPMG have pointed out that in some of the London areas, there are no firms who currently operate at the scale required and in only 13 of the 32 London areas is there more than one firm currently operating at scale. Similary, in 30 of the 53 areas outside London, there are no firms currently operating at the scale required.

Question 4: Do you have any views on the moJ comments set out in this document? Please provide evidence to support your views.

The MOJ are relying upon the KPMG analysis despite KPMG having itself raised a number of areas where further analysis was required eg:

• thecapabilityofproviderstogrowtheir business in certain procurement areas,

• theextenttowhichmarketconsolidation is achievable,

• theimpactinLondonoffirmsbiddingfor contracts in more than one area,

• theavailabilityofinvestmentcapital,the impact on competition in the longer term.

KMPG did not intend the MOJ to blindly rely on their analysis.

Question 5: If the assumptions and data on which the kPmG recommendations are based remain appropriate, do you consider that there is any reason not to accept the maximum number of contracts possible (525), as the moJ have done? Please provide evidence to support your views.

Given the need for further analysis, it is not possible to say that 525 is the correct maximum number of contracts to be offered. Further, each procurement area has individual needs, dependent upon locality, geography, social factors and dynamics within that area etc.

And what of the firms who have to close, creating job losses not just for the solicitors but the support staff?

This matter should also not be considered in isolation from civil legal aid cuts and the developing social chaos surrounding the family justice system and the myriad of problems now being seen to arise from that, all of which were identified to the MOJ during the civil legal aid consultation process and none of which were heeded by the Government.

Why can the Government not learn from that lesson and this time listen to those best placed to predict the future impact of these proposals – the criminal law solicitors themselves?

SPGOctober 2014

supporting solicitors

Law Society helplines

Practice Advice Service Advice on legal practice and money laundering issues 0870 606 2522

Lawyerline Advice on client care and complaints handling 0870 606 2588

Pastoral Care Help with personal, financial and employment problems 020 7320 5795

Library Assistance with legal information enquiries 0870 606 2511

JLD Pastoral or career advice for junior lawyers 0800 085 6131

14345 ad.indd 1 16/12/09 15:07:33

RESPONSE bY SOLICITORS SOLE PRACTITIONERS GROUP TO THE SRA CONSULTATION ON THE COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS REVIEW

The compensation fund is a very important feature of the protection given to clients when engaging the services of a solicitor and exceeds the protection given

in many other professional organisations. It is an expense which has been accepted by the profession for a long period of time. However, there have been substantial claims upon it in recent times which do not appear to match the criteria of preventing hardship to clients and the public.

These appear to be losses to large organisations such as building societies as a result of fraudulent activities and looking at the statistics in a previous report, it is that sort of claim which gives rise to the most substantial payments.

The consultation paper proposes that the criteria for payment should be limited to organisations having a turnover of not more than £2 million.

It is not suggested exactly how this rule would be implemented, whether by a strict prohibition or general guidance as to the operation of the fund.

The view of the Sole Practitioners Group is that the proposal is well-intentioned in saving the majority of solicitors from paying out compensation fund premiums to be paid to large organisations which should have been able to have either absorbed or provided for the losses which have been incurred.

However, one questions the way in which this is being proposed. There would appear to be a sufficient discretion in the operation of the fund under the legislation at the moment for claims to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis and particularly on the basis of the hardship suffered by the organisation.

If those criteria were applied restrictively rather than, as it appears from a previous report, generously, with large organisations being aware of the limitations then surely the object would be achieved in any event.

Having an arbitrary limit on the value of the business will lead to many disputes as to the operation of a rigid criteria on the basis of the appropriate time when one should take into account the value of the business; when the fault occurs or the work is done or when the claim is made.

The view of Sole Practitioners Group is that the resources in the Fund should be husbanded much more closely, to a certain extent in line with the proposals, but on the basis of flexibility rather than creating a rigid demarcation between claims, which may give rise to legal disputes which would end up being fought by the Fund using solicitors contributions for that purpose.

It is appreciated that this answer does not give the clear Response which is required but our suggestion is that there should not be a clear-cut response but rather a general tightening of the criteria upon which compensation claims are granted.

The quotation is taken from the judgement in the case quoted in the consultation paper that: “applicants do not have a right to compensation which they are entitled to enforce; all they have is a right to seek a favourable exercise of that discretion”.

It is the exercise of discretion which needs to be somewhat more restricted rather than the criteria for the exercise of that discretion.

Clive SuttonHonorary SecSole Practitioners Group

Call us now on 0700 22 22 999 or visit travelers.co.uk/pullingtogether

Travelers Professional Risks Limited is an appointed representative of Travelers Insurance Company Limited, which is authorised by the Prudential Regulation Authority and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority. Registered office: Exchequer Court, 33 St Mary Axe, London EC3A 8AG. Registered in England 5201980.

Pulling togetherWhatever you’re up against, we believe in working together

as a team. That’s why Travelers remains one of the UK’s

leading names in Professional Indemnity insurance.

Our team includes qualified solicitors with experience in

many areas of practice who know exactly what challenges

you may have to face. What’s more, with our insight,

expertise and determination we aim to keep you ahead of

the game if you’re hit with an unexpected claim.


The SPG has no objections to proposals when the SRA are factually convinced they will widen the market for legal services in small firms provided that:

standards of consumer protection and ethical behaviour are maintained; and

there is a level playing field in terms of regulatory burdens between firms.

The SPG concerns with the SRA’s proposals are:

We believe that it is wrong in principle and impossible in practice that legal work done in an organisation regulated by the SRA should be subject to different regulators depending on the individual doing the work and the type of work;

The protections available to the consumer are unclear;

There is a danger of confusion both for consumers and for third parties about which regulator is responsible for which aspect of the work;

Regulators outside the legal profession are unlikely to have the experience of the ethical principles that apply to legal professionals which will lead to lower standards thus inevitably be an incentive to firms to take qualified solicitors out of the SRA jurisdiction altogether;

The proposals will mainly be attractive to large organisations which are not currently regulated by the SRA.

The proposals will be difficult for small firms, especially sole practitioners, and this will affect the competitiveness of such firms.

This is the Solicitors Sole Practitioners (SPG) response to the SRA’s consultation paper on

Multi-Disciplinary Practices (MDPs).

Solicitor Sole Practitioners are by their very nature adverse to partnerships but might consider joining or forming an MDP with non-solicitor professionals if they were satisfied safeguards were in place or any risk was both minimal and acceptable and would not endanger their ability to continue in private practice.

The SRA’s proposals wishes to:

Remove barriers to entry and to reduce regulatory burdens on entities seeking to enter the legal market and who require authorisation to carry out reserved legal activity;

improve access to justice by supporting legal businesses to widen consumer choice by authorising different structures that can offer legal advice.

It proposes that non-reserved services carried out in an MDP would not be regulated by the SRA if:

they are not carried out or supervised by authorised persons;

they are subject to suitable external regulation;

clients are made aware that the activity is not SRA regulated;

the activity is not integral to the provision of reserved services.

1. Do you agree with our analysis of the problems facing mDP applicants and the need to make changes?

The lack of data makes it impossible for the SPG to assess either extent of the problems facing MDP applicants or whether the solutions suggested would provide any benefit.

The SPG considers that the percentage of waivers of the rules for ABS applicants is high and is undesirable.

The SRA also highlights problems between conflicts in rules for those who are dual regulated. These conflicts will create insuperable difficulties for firms seeking to provide reserved legal services.

This is not an exclusively ABS issue and the SRA should explain why it intends to put in place an exemption for just one type of entity.

2. Do you agree with the proposed external regulation exception?

The proposed exception is ill-thought out, complex and likely to prove near impossible to implement.

• Clients will need to be made aware that it is unregulated by the SRA.

• Dual regulation is likely only to be manageable by large firms

Clients are likely to be confused about the different regulators involved.

It will be difficult for LeO to deal with a complaint if the matter involves persons regulated by different regulators.

SOLICITOR SOLE PRACTITIONERS GROUPSRA CONSULTATION PAPER ON

MULTI DISCIPLINARY PRACTICES


6. Are there any other non-reserved legal activities that should be considered as integral to the provision of reserved services?

The grant of probate should not be separate from the administration of probate.

The client will not accept having to go to one regulator if there were a problem in obtaining a grant and a different one if the firm failed to deal properly with the estate.

Firms are likely to move as much as they can into the unregulated sector.

7. Do you have any comments on the draft changes to the SRA handbook in Annex A?

There is a lack of detail and without this information it is impossible to answer the above question.

8. Are there any other ways in which you consider the SRA could act to make its regulation of mDPs more proportionate and targeted?

The complex exemptions are worse than the mischief they are supposed to eradicate.

There will be conflicts between the rules of different regulators so that uniform rules are required and will be impossible to achieve.

9. Do you agree with our analysis of the disadvantages of option 2?

The disadvantages of this option is that the SRA has no evidence as to the effect on Small to Medium firms who might find this option attractive and the firm will need to apply two regulatory approaches to its work.

There will be confusion for clients with such a complex regulatory position.

10. what changes to the separate business rule do you think that we should consider for further consultation?

The separate business rules will need to be reviewed.

There will be confusion about undertakings given.

No mention is made of legal professional privilege.

The basis of calculation of firm fees is misguided and complex.

3. Do you agree with the way that we propose to consider the suitability of external regulation?

The SRA’s fails to provide details and is thus difficult to assess. We are concerned about:

• suitability

• Ombudsman absence

• absence of knowledge of ethics and values of the legal profession

• absence of provision for conflicts of interest

4. Are there any other non-reserved legal activities (in addition to activity as part of human resources advice) that you consider we should allow outside of SRA activity regulation as minor and subsidiary to a non-legal service?

The SRA should not exclude cases where an unregulated person provides legal advice as an incidental and subsidiary part of their work.

The client should have same protection as he or she would have if the advice were provided by a regulated law firm.

5. Do you agree with our proposal in relation to cases involving multiple teams?

The exemption appears to be impossible to apply.

The SRA approach is also confused.

This is wrong because the client will expect the legal work to be regulated.

The effect of changing the outcomes will need to be considered as well as how changes will affect small firms and especially Sole Practitioners, who are unlikely to be able to take advantage of such changes.

11. Do you agree that Recognised Bodies should be able to provide a wide range of professional services if they wish to do so?

We would like to see a level playing field between ABS and non-ABS firms and a greater freedom from regulation for non-ABS firms regarding the services they can provide.

12. Do you agree with our analysis in Annex B of the impact of the proposals in option 1, and are there any other impacts or available data or research that we should consider?

The analysis focus on the changes allowing new entrants into the market. There is little consideration given to:

consumer protection;

the cost to firms implementing complex exceptions and the take up numbers;

the impact and effect on BME solicitors, of whom many are SPG members owning and working in small firms.

Ian Lithman SPG Executive Committee member on behalf of The Solicitors Sole Practitioner Group

17 June 2014


order to avoid an untimely rush for the offering and acceptance of insurance cover quotations. Pressure would be put on solicitors faced with the new proposals.

7. The prospect of being able to firstly prepare application forms, secondly to obtain a reasonable cross-section of proposals and thirdly to be able to make a reasoned choice between these proposals is totally unreasonable coupled with the need to assess the amount of cover required due to the lowering of the minimum cover proposed.

8. For this reason, whilst the Group is prepared to answer the consultation within the appropriate period which is of course much shorter than usual, the Group do not feel that the implementation of the proposals can reasonably be carried through within the current insurance year in readiness for the next insurance renewal date.

The InSurAnCe InduSTrY

9. The Solicitors Sole Practitioners Group has connections with the insurance industry through its preferred broker, Willis, and has prepared this response in response to information provided by Willis and the insurers with whom Willis deals. However its views are distinctly its own. Surprisingly, on this occasion they coincide with those of The Law Society and most other commentators.

BACkground

1. Professional indemnity insurance is a vital protection for both consumers and practitioners and particularly so for sole practitioners who are particularly vulnerable to potential claims, as a result of not having partners to share any uninsured liability.

TImIng

2. The SRA consultation about professional indemnity insurance is welcomed. What is not welcomed is the speed with which this consultation is being pressed through.

3. The proposals are to improve the availability and provision of insurance and the choice given to solicitors in obtaining their insurance to fit the circumstances of their practice.

4. The proposals are not in response to any immediate cause for concern. But if correctly designed would have a long-term benefit to some practitioners such as those who are unlikely to have a PII claim due to the nature of the work they undertake.

5. The consultation is six weeks only followed by its potential implementation in a short period prior to the next renewal round.

6. Insurers need to be able to assess the results of any new provisions and make their proposals for cover within a reasonable period in advance of the renewal date in

10. It is understood that the insurance industry has prepared its own response to this consultation on a unified basis and therefore the proposals made by the insurance industry need to be taken into account.

The level of Cover

11. The object of the proposals is to attempt to enable policies to be tailor-made to individual firms with the presumed intention that these proposals will result in lower premiums.

12. Low premiums are of significant importance to all firms and particularly sole practitioners whose insurance premiums are a big percentage of their turnover. However under the current system, it is rare that a sole practitioner has to worry as to whether that practitioner is adequately covered or not.

13. The consequences of lack of cover, reduced cover or exhaustion of cover due to an inadequate policy will have dire consequences on a sole practitioner. The first remedy that a claimant will have will be against the individual resources of a sole practitioner. At the moment approximately half of sole practitioners are not protected by limited liability for various reasons and their own properties and personal assets would be put at risk by the cover being exceeded in the event of any one claim or an aggregate of claims. With the current limit of £2 million in respect

RESPONSE bY THE SOLICITOR SOLE PRACTITIONERS GROUP TO

PROFESSIONAL INDEMNITY INSURANCE CONSULTATION bY THE SRA.


solicitor relationship. Similar arguments affect the question of aggregation and the overall limit of insurers liability which is rarely affected by aggregation to the extent that the proposed limitations on overall liability would materially affect the premiums.

18. The above comments set out the general considerations of the Solicitor Sole Practitioners Group to the overall questions which are asked.

19. However, there can be situations in relation to niche markets which have no realistic prospect of the claim approaching the current level of cover, and in which there might be relaxations.

The PoSSIBIlITY of A wAIver In SPeCIAl CIrCumSTAnCeS

20. The Group have considered the suggestion of maintaining the existing minimum level of cover but allowing solicitors to make it clear in their practising certificate application that they intend to take advantage of a form of waiver to a lower level of cover in order to comply with the very special circumstances of their business. This may be in such areas as crime, employment or childcare or some branch of work where it is agreed by all parties that the risk of exceeding a certain level of cover is so remote that the cover can be reduced. In those circumstances, the reduction of cover must have a significant consequential effect on the premium otherwise there is little point in a reduction of cover.

21. The response from the insurance industry is that firms of this nature which would qualify for a waiver already have all their relevant circumstances taken into account in the setting of the level of their premium and the amendment of the level of cover has very little impact on the premium in any event.

of individual firms and £3 million in respect of incorporated firms that cover is still rarely exceeded for most sole practitioners. Any sole practitioner who feels at risk of a greater claim can always take additional cover. However, the cost of taking additional cover is disproportionate to the cost of the minimum cover and will continue to be so.

14. Will the reduction in minimum cover result in a significant reduction in premiums? The answer is in the statistic which is presented in paragraph 9 of the consultation paper. This is the statistic that 98% of claims were below £500,000 with 2% therefore being above £500,000.

15. The obvious mathematical corollary to this statistic is that insurers would reduce the cost of cover by only 2%. Accordingly, for a saving of 2% a practitioner would be at risk of the consequences of lack of the difference in cover by insuring only £500,000, such difference being currently £1.5 million equal to 75%. One has to say that that is the sort of insurance risk that most people would be willing to pay to have covered.

16. Accordingly is it appropriate that solicitors should be able to waive that risk and that in 2% of cases claimants may be left with a remedy only against the solicitor’s personal assets or potentially against the compensation fund?

17. For the 2% reduction in premiums the public would need to be aware of the solicitor’s insurance cover. There is bound to be a directive or practice direction that the solicitor’s client care letter sets out the extent of the solicitor’s current cover. This would place clients in the invidious position of choosing a solicitor not only on reputation and quality of service but also on the extent of their cover, which is an unnecessary factor to introduce into the client-

22. Further consultations would need to take place with the insurance industry to establish whether that reduction of cover was a reality in the overall context of professional indemnity insurance.

dISTInCTIon of lIABIlITY for dIfferenT ClIenTS

23. The next major issue is the requirements for protection of certain individuals and firms and the lack of cover for larger clients.

24. Again, the whole issue of whether there is any benefit in such exclusions relates to whether the exclusion has a material effect on a reduction in premiums.

25. Firstly, from the point of view of sole practitioners it is likely that they will only be acting for the parties to whom proposal 3 recommends that compulsory professional indemnity cover to be continued.

26. Where big firms act largely for organisations which exceed those parties, it is likely that they will take top-up cover to cover such parties otherwise their ability to act for such parties may well be significantly affected.

morTgAge lenderS

27. The real issue in relation to this limitation occurs where sole practitioners and other firms act for mortgage lenders. The short answer to this is that given the numbers of restrictions by mortgage lenders on being represented by small firms, they are unlikely to be prepared to be represented by any firm which does not provide them with insurance cover and accordingly in practical terms, the option not to cover mortgage lenders is going to be a theoretical option only and not of practical benefit. Sole practitioners do need to act in conveyancing matters and any action taken by the SRA that would further restrict ability to do so must be avoided.


33. This would have the effect that the uninsured claims would fall on the compensation fund. It is likely that any sole practitioner who had not achieved limited liability would not sleep easy in retirement if he or she were exposed to a 20% chance of a claim in years 3 to 6. They are most likely to buy cover for that period.

34. The offer being made for a reduction in the compulsory period of run-off is therefore again rather more theoretical than real and, given the anxiety to a practitioner in making that decision, it is hardly worth the option being offered.

35. It is appreciated that a further top- up policy could be obtained for the 3 to 6 year period. However, the combined administrative cost of the two policies may well exceed the original six-year policy thereby increasing the costs for the vast majority of practitioners who wish to be covered for the full period of the interim run-off period until covered by the Law Society scheme.

36. It is appreciated that the Law Society scheme may come to an end in 2020 but there is nothing in this proposal which deals with that eventuality and that bridge must be crossed when it comes

ConSequenTIAl ProBlemS of The ChAngeS

37. It is accepted that any firm may wish to consider its own PI cover. The difficulty is that once the minimum terms are reduced to a discretionary level each firm will have to go through this analysis for the prospect of very little return in theory.

38. In addition, a new practice issue will arise as to the communication of the limit of cover to the client and another very new dialogue will take place, which has never previously taken place except in very rare circumstances, as to respective firms level of cover and clients will now start to shop around on the

PoTenTIAl reduCTIon In run off Cover

28. The next proposal is in relation to reducing run-off cover to 3 years. At the moment most claims under the limitation period for contract and tort other than personal injury are going to have to be brought within six years. Obviously there may be other lengthier limitation periods in relation to other types of work.

29. At present, the Law Society time-limited administered cover picks up from six years but limited, onwards although there may be a change in that scheme in the future. The statistic provided in paragraph 28 is that 60% of the claims made are notified in the first three years itself so 40% are then notified thereafter, of a which a proportion will be within years 3 to 6 and the balance after the six years and into the time-limited cover presently provided by the Law Society. No breakdown is given as to the respective figures but one could guess that the 40% of claims are evenly divided between the 3 to 6 year period and the 6 year plus period.

30. Regard must also be had to the fact that there are claims that only come to the claimant’s notice years after the limitation period has expired and time runs from such event.

31. The question therefore arises as to whether, if a practitioner was exposed to lack of cover between three and six years at a say 20% chance of the claim arising during that period, an individual would be prepared to take that risk.

32. In such circumstances, a practitioner would not be practising any further. They may or may not be protected by limited liability and one could imagine that in those circumstances most firms would have acquired limited liability before they closed down in order to give that level of protection.

basis of cover. Firms will promote their business on the basis of cover which the Group sees as an in invidious consideration or marketing strategy in the provision of professional services.

39. In addition, it will have to be a contractual requirement that in the event that there are varying levels of cover, in respect of quantum, type of client and length of run-off cover, the client must be told of that level of cover, or would alternatively have some remedy for not being told of it, which would, as has been said create an unnecessary area of negotiation and friction in the provision of legal services.

SummArY

40. Accordingly whilst the changes proposed are on the face of it well meaning and intended to give rise to a potential reduction in expense, an objective analysis of those proposals does not give that result but gives unnecessary further grounds for concern by sole practitioners as to their levels of cover and potential friction between sole practitioners and their clients as to the level of cover that they have provided and indeed significant disputes in the future over issues arising out of the provision of varying levels of cover.

41. With some regret, therefore, the Sole Practitioners Group has to take the view that the responsible approach for the benefit of the public and the profession as a whole, is to maintain appropriate minimum levels of cover upon which there may be further consultation, but with the prospect of waivers for individual firms who can justify such waivers due to the unusual and specific nature of the work that they carry out providing them with a significant benefit in the event that their cover is reduced significantly for that specific work.


market and provide competition, will not have that effect because the risks to insurers will not have been significantly reduced. Complications inherent in the new proposals will add to the administrative costs and the concerns of practitioners and clients without worthwhile reductions and overall will be counter-productive.

9. Are there any impacts, available data or evidence that we should consider in finalising our impact assessment? –

See the reply to the previous questions and the comments that have been made in the overall background.

10. Are there any other aspects of the minimum terms and conditions for PII that you think we should review? –

The insurance industry takes the view that an alternative form of control over client’s money other than the existing system may reduce claim significantly and therefore reduce premiums. Whilst this is something which has been considered frequently in the past and was adopted by many European countries it is not something which has yet been fully explored in this country and may not fit with our flexible conveyancing system and, of course, is not a subject for this consultation.

The question of the disparity of premium cover between limited and unlimited practitioners would have been assumed by the agreement of the principles of the consultation to have been dealt with by the flexibility for each firm to choose its cover. On the basis that it is unlikely that the proposal will be carried through against the opposition of The Law Society and groups such as this group, the question then arises of the problem of the outstanding differential in premiums.

42. However it may well be that the present system means that such firms are already assessed in accordance with the level of risk on that basis and the effective reduction of cover will again be of no real practical benefit.

formAl AnSwerS

Accordingly the responses to the questions are as follows:

1. Do you agree with reducing the compulsory cover to £500,000? –

No. See the reasons given above.

2. Do you agree with introducing a cap on aggregate insurance liability? –

No .See the reasons given above.

3. Do you think any such cap should be £1.5 million, £5 million or another figure? –

Not applicable. See the reasons given above.

4. Do you agree that the introduction of a cap should be balanced by reducing the opportunity for claims to be added together to treat them as “one claim”? –

Not applicable. See the reasons given above.

5. Do you agree with limiting the compulsory cover requirements to individuals, small enterprises, charities and trusts? –

No. For the reasons given above.

6. Do you agree with reducing the run-off cover to 3 years? –

No for the reasons given above.

7. Do you agree with the proposed changes to code of conduct outcome? –

Not applicable in view of the disagreement with the principles proposed.

8. Do you have any views about our assessment of the impact of these changes? –

The Group’s analysis is that these proposals, whilst intended to encourage insurers to enter the

The only reason for the difference in premiums can be that an unlimited practice will have the resources of its own partners to fall back on if insurance cover is not sufficient between say £2 million and £3 million. It may be that the cost of the differentiation in cover, which the insurance industry put at approximately £1000 per million, is an increase which needs to be taken into account by practitioners in opting for the advantage of limited liability and the frequent tax advantages which it provides.

There is no argument for increasing the cover from £2 million-£3 million for unlimited practices. There maybe an argument for reducing the £3 million to £2 million for limited practices in order to unify the cover required by the two respective entities. Research needs to be provided as to the original reasons for the differentiation in cover.

Clive Sutton

On behalf of the Sole Practitioners Group


The situation up to now has been that accountant’s reports have been carried out in a very detailed fashion so that it is often inevitable that there is some breach of the rules which may have to be reported. Frequent cases come before the tribunal relating to striking off for not providing accountants reports. Many cases of financial irregularity by solicitors must be accompanied by a lack of production of an accountants report.

At a stroke, all that is intended to be swept away to leave the confirmation of the protection of clients money to the individual described as The Compliance Officer for Finance and Administration, often an employee. In the case of sole practitioners that is likely to be the sole practitioner himself.

That person is going to be asked to sign a declaration that they are satisfied that the firm is managing its client account in accordance with the SRA accounts rules. Many sole practitioners who quite reasonably delegate the management of their client account to an employee or subcontractor would not be able to give such an assurance without the backup of a professional accountants report.

It is unlikely that the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal will excuse financial mismanagement on the basis that the COFA signing the report did so without any sufficient knowledge of the detail and control of the accounting system.

One thing that the solicitor’s profession purports to provide is reassurance to the public as to the security of their funds placed with solicitors on client accounts. It is quite likely that some solicitors

1. Do you agree with the removal of the mandatory requirement that all firms holding client money must submit an annual accountants report?

2. Do you agree with the proposed amendment to the role of the compliance officer for finance and administration (making them responsible for certifying that they have ensured compliance with the requirements that would have been carried out by an accountants report)?

3. Do you agree with the proposed changes to the SRA accounts rules (which implement the proposal in question 2)?

4. Do you have (or are you aware of) any evidence, analysis, or views of assistance in completing an impact assessment on these proposals?

The answers to the above questions will be taken together.

The Solicitor Sole Practitioners Group is a Group which is responsible to its members and the profession in improving the practice environment of sole practitioners while at the same time upholding standards of the profession.

On the face of it, the removal of a requirement, which for many sole practitioners carries a significant burden of costs, is to be welcomed. However, if the removal of this requirement cannot be shown to produce real benefits while at the same time reducing excessive risk then it is the duty of the Group to make this clear.

wishing to hold themselves out to the public as involving good practice will continue to have an accountants report and make that clear to clients as a marketing tool to distinguish them from other firms.

The firms which are going to benefit from this change are going to be those who may have in mind to breach the rules for whatever reason.

If sole practitioners could see this change as a significant financial benefit to firms the Group would be looking to see if there was any way this proposal could be made to work while still providing the appropriate level of reassurance without independent scrutiny, which has to be paid for.

The difficulty, however, is that firms will continue to need to have professional indemnity insurance. That insurance will be based on the risk of circumstances giving rise to claims. Insurers will be bound to take into account the fact that they have the reassurance that some firms accounts will be supported by independent reports and others will not. They are bound to adjust the premiums accordingly.

This adjustment could be in the region of 10% of the premium. An accountants report for a sole practitioner may be in the region of £1000. Insurance may be in the region of £10,000 and accordingly a 10% adjustment to the insurance premium will effectively cancel out the financial benefits of not having an accountant’s report.

What is required is to amend the current system which appears to have the following defects.


RESPONSE bY THE SOLICITORS SOLE PRACTITIONERS GROUP TO THE SRA

CONSULTATION IN RELATION TO THE CHANGES TO REPORTING ACCOUNTING REQUIREMENTS

Admittedly this cost has to be passed on to the public but from the public perception one could surely imagine that a client placing, perhaps, the proceeds of sale of his main asset such as his house with a solicitor would expect that the account in which it is lodged would be subject to some form of independent professional scrutiny rather than the assurance of the solicitor himself or an employee arbitrarily described as a “compliance officer for finance and administration”.

Accountants reports which are based on the requirements of the SRA currently and which require too detailed an examination and which could be simplified thereby reducing the cost significantly while still retaining the requirement for a third party report.

The amount of paper retention complained of by the SRA. Surely in this day and age this could be replaced by a digital system which does not require the expense of storage and disposal.

Once again, as in the professional indemnity consultation regarding limits of indemnity, the Group with reluctance has to argue against the removal of a check which has supported the integrity of the solicitors name and stood the test of time well, apart of course from the question of its cost.


your own! And through which you will smile away with gritted teeth whilst all your smug married solicitor colleagues, who are all married to mega-rich QC’s, tell you in painstaking detail about the latest extension to the Grade II listed mansion into which they moved last year…”to accommodate a larger nursery, you know”…….or is that just me?

Anyway….I digress. That is all sounding very negative, when in fact the truth is, I actually love the expression ‘flying solo’ because it is such a true reflection of the freedom that I feel. Freedom in my work, in my personal life, in the choices that I am able to make….without having to worry about whether Humphrey Sterling-Smythe QC has his tea on time! (Gosh, I hope there isn’t really a Humphrey Sterling-Smythe QC – if there is, I apologise and stress that I am not referring to him!)

This week was a case in point. I am a huge fan of possibly the most stylish television drama ever, the fabulous Downton Abbey. Series 5, episode 8 saw the beautiful wedding of Lady Rose to the dashing Atticus Flintshire and whilst watching, I commented

on the beautiful setting of the wedding and wondered where it

may have been filmed. Just four days

Some of us ‘singleton’ lawyers are singletons in every sense of the word….flying

solo through the worlds of work, home and social life. Navigating the challenges of trying to draft a position statement on the eve of a court hearing whilst also remembering to put the bins out….or struggling with the zip of a dress whilst at the same time trying to hail a taxi to take you to the local law society dinner….which incidentally you will be arriving at for the tenth year running yet again on

later, and quite by chance, my day took an unexpected turn and I found myself attending an evening drinks reception, which turned into a real giggle of a night, without the need to worry about getting back to Humphrey! As an aside, all my fellow ‘flying solo-ers’ will know that a drinks reception is a lovely relief for the singleton lawyer, a great equaliser you might say, since pretty much everyone attending will have popped in on their way home from work. Hence, for that brief moment in champagne-drinking time, we are all rendered partner and spouse-less! And to my great astonishment and delight, I soon discovered that the very room in which we were standing was no less than the very room in which the stylish Lady Rose/Atticus nuptials were performed – I was beside myself!

So whilst one day, no doubt I will be pleased to decline such invitations in preference for getting home to cook Humphrey his tea…. for now, at least, I treasure the privileges and opportunities that flying solo in this wonderful profession sometimes brings.

Legallyblonde162.

Flying SOLO

Solicitors Association (LCCSA) and the Criminal Law Solicitors Association (CLSA) for financial support for a judicial review application which challenged aspects of the consultation process on the Transforming Legal Aid: Next Steps proposals. I had also received emails from sole practitioners in relation to this issue

asking me to vote in favour of providing financial support for the judicial review proceedings. The focus of the claim for judicial review was the preparation of the KPMG report on the appropriate number of duty contracts to award, which the LCCSA and CLSA suggest was not released to appropriate Consultees, rendering the process unfair. Council recognised the deep concern of many criminal law practitioners at the Lord Chancellor’s decisions and agreed that the Society should assist the parties by offering to fund mediation to resolve the issues. Should mediation not succeed, Council agreed that the Law Society would provide financial support to enable the practitioner groups to proceed with the litigation, if permission is granted by the Court. The successful Council motion was:

That the Society, in the exercise of its representative function, should –

1. (a) By letter invite the claimants to propose mediation, with a stay of proceedings for that mediation, with the option that the Society be involved in that mediation; and

(b) Offer to pay the claimants’ costs of that mediation up to a maximum of £30,000.

2. Provided that the Society’s mediation invitation is accepted by

I attended the Law Society Council meetings on 9-10 July and 14 October 2014 in my capacity

as Council Member representing sole practitioners, along with Ian Lithman. I attach below a summary of the key decisions made by the Council during those meetings. If you would like any further information, or wish to discuss any issues affecting sole practitioners which you would like me to raise at future Council Meetings, please do not hesitate to contact me on [email protected] or on 0121 551 7866.

July – Andrew Caplen is the new President of the Law Society

Andrew Caplen was appointed President of the Law Society at the LS Annual General Meeting on 10 July 2014. The new Vice- President is now Jonathan Smithers and Robert Bourns is the new Deputy Vice-President. SPG congratulates all the new Office Holders and looks forward to supporting and working with them over the coming 12 months.

July – Support for Criminal Law Solicitors in Judicial Review Proceedings

Council considered a request from the London Criminal Courts

the claimants, and if the offer of the mediation is not agreed to by the government, or if the mediation takes place but is not successful, offer the claimants the sum of £45,000 in respect of their costs of the judicial review.

Supporting members through the changes to criminal legal aid remains a priority for the Law Society. It has engaged with members in the nine areas where the KPMG report identifies a challenge of principle to the Ministry of Justice’s (MOJ) proposed model, and is representing the views of those members to the MOJ. The Law Society has also provided support to individual members throughout the tender process for the crime ‘own client’ contracts.

october – Update on Support for Criminal Law Solicitors

The Law Society has continued to be active on criminal legal aid. Following the Society’s lobbying, the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) delayed the start of the duty contracting process to October. The Society responded strongly to the MOJ consultation on the Otterburn and KPMG reports on how legal aid is delivered and made clear that the Society viewed the proposed scheme as failing to meet the MOJ’s own objectives of ensuring that any future criminal legal aid scheme must be sustainable with sufficient numbers of solicitors doing criminal duty work, and that it could bankrupt solicitors’ businesses, leaving areas of the country with no legal representation for anyone accused of a crime and depriving vulnerable members of the public from access to justice. The response also made clear that the Society is extremely concerned about the scale of risk to the future availability of criminal defence services and access to

COUNCIL MEMBER’S REPORTUpdate from Law Society Council Meetings 9-10 July and 14 October 2014 – Lubna Shuja

The Law Society Council Members for Sole Practitioners are Lubna Shuja (email: [email protected]) and Ian Lithman (email: [email protected]). Please contact them direct if you have any issues or concerns you would like them to raise with the Law Society on your behalf.


budgets supporting this for all parts of the Law Society Group. Of the total budget of just over £114 million, the Law Society, as the body representing solicitors, accounts for some 13.5%. The business plan for the Law Society for 2014-15 is consistent with the strategic framework set for the Society three years ago, and it has been informed this year by detailed research to understand and gauge the views of members, who have said that they would like the Society to understand their needs, and be more visible in representing them and protecting their interests; to communicate and engage with them; to meet their diverse needs; and to provide them with products, services, guidance and support which are valued.

In 2014-15 the Society intends to build on many achievements from the previous year, including progress towards better communicating the value of the Law Society to members; addressing member satisfaction in some key services including the Library, the support centre, and Practice Advice; launching the new Find a Solicitor; and developing the Conveyancing Portal which due to launch in 2015.

For 2014-15 the Society’s key priorities will include listening further to members and acting on what they hear, being proactive in identifying areas that matter to the profession and taking the lead in representing members’ interests; enhancing current membership support and services, tailoring them to the diverse needs of the membership; and ensuring that they provide value for money for members, reducing overheads, and operating within budget. Council approved the business plan.

october – Shaping the environment

Council heard that the Law Society is increasingly looking to marshal resources across policy, communications, relationship management, and government relations, in order to have the greatest possible impact. Examples included the Access to Justice campaign which had been launched on 8 September, with the objectives of raising public awareness of the benefits of lawyer-aided access to justice, persuading policy makers of the

justice – including for vulnerable people – if the government proceeds with the current scheme. SPG also responded to the MOJ consultation on behalf of sole practitioners and if you would like to read it, the response can be found at http://www.spg.uk.com/article/view/?id=574 and also appears in this edition.

July – Responses to SRA Consultations on Reforms to PII, Compensation fund, Accountants Reports and multi-Disciplinary Practices

Council noted that the SRA had launched consultations on a wide- ranging programme of reform, involving significant changes to professional indemnity insurance, the Compensation Fund, accountants’ reports, and multi-disciplinary practices. The SRA wanted to implement the majority of these from October this year. SPG responded to each of the Consultations but also expressed concerns to the SRA about the number of consultations that were released at the same time with a very short time scale for responding. In addition we voiced our concerns about the period the SRA is considering for those reforms. If you would like to read our responses, these appear in this edition.

The Law Society also formally responded and continues to engage with the SRA and the LSB. The Law Society welcomed steps to reduce the regulatory burden, but also represented members’ concerns by stressing that reforms on this scale should not be done piecemeal. The Law Society’s Responses can be found on the Law Society website.

october – Budget and business plan

The most significant business of the October Council meeting was the discussion of the business plan and budget for the Law Society Group. Council confirmed the 17% reduction in the individual practising certificate (PC) fee for 2014-15 which had been agreed in July, and agreed to the detailed

need to amend parts of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act, and encouraging solicitors to make their services more accessible to the public.

The Law Society had also been active at the party conference season, with events focusing on the economic and social importance of access to justice and the rule of law. The Society engaged with the Home Office to obtain amendments to the Serious Crime Bill clarifying the possible penalties on solicitors whose clients are engaged in crime. On the international agenda, the second annual International Marketplace Conference had taken place in the summer, with over 120 delegates from across the world, and the international team had organised and hosted a series of seminars in Liverpool as part of the International Festival of Business.

Promoting solicitors Council also heard about the launch of the Law Society’s new consumer campaign. This aims to promote solicitors’ services in the six largest practice areas: conveyancing, will writing, family law, personal injury, employment, and law for small businesses. The campaign uses PR, social media, advertising, infographics and video to highlight the value that solicitors add, and to drive more clients to the Find a Solicitor website. It has attracted significant coverage and been viewed by hundreds of thousands of people. Over 800 firms have signed up to use the material to support their own marketing efforts.

New Chief ExecutiveThe Law Society has appointed Catherine Dixon as its new Chief Executive. She will join the Law Society on 5th January 2015. In the meantime, the interim Chief Executive is Paul Coen who took up his interim post on 8th September 2014.

Lubna ShujaLaw Society Council MemberOctober 2014



For more thrival tips for independent lawyers, visit: www.lexisnexis.co.uk/blog/businessoflaw 2

Going Solo: The SPG’s Karen Purdy gives the what how and why of setting up as a sole practitioner

Setting up as a Sole Practitioner:

Deciding to set up on your own is really exciting and full of possibilities, but it can be daunting. Doing your research can help avoid it being a scary process.

I really enjoy being a sole practitioner (an “SP”) and have gradually built up my niche firm to be a small team of experts. For me it works being a specialist firm, dealing in Wills, Probate and Contentious Probate. I get referrals by word of mouth, mainly from existing clients and financial advisors, rather than me spending huge amounts of cash on advertising – the huge initial outlay costs are not always required, though there are some expenses such as PI insurance that you will need.

The Sole Practitioner’s Group (SPG) has a website that should be very helpful for SPs and those considering setting up as an SP - http://www.spg.uk.com/

It has KnowHow sections, a forum and contact details for the Executive Committee members of SPG. You can contact me or anyone from the Executive Committee if you have any questions. This guide shares my thoughts on what you need to consider and where to turn to for advice.

Going SOLOExecutive Committee Member, Karen Purdy, gives the what, how and

why of setting up as a sole practitioner.


Going SoloThe SPG’s Karen Purdy gives the what, how and why of setting up as a sole practitioner



How do I set-up?

For technical help on the forms to complete for the SRA, you should visit http://www.sra.org.uk/authorisation/

Compliance will be a big thing to consider (from setting up your client care letters to choosing your firm’s COLP and COFA) and there is plenty of help out there. Your PI insurer may have some compliance tools and advice that you can access. LexisNexis has a very good blog, currently focusing on compliance, but also looking at other management topics http://lexisweb.co.uk/blog/businessoflaw/

You will need 36 months of PQE (usually!), PI insurance and a viable business plan; hopefully this guide will help you get these and consider the key aspects for your new firm.

Where do I set up?

Your office could be at home or on the high street, but additional things that would be useful for you to investigate are:

1. Checking house deeds for restrictive covenants if you want to work from home,

2. Finding out how much your business rates would be, as these apply even if you work from home,

3. Finding out the cost of insurance (separate to PI insurance) that covers clients or employees visiting you (mine is about £150).

Once you are set up, you should begin to receive SPG’s quarterly magazine, SOLO. You can download it from our website http://www.spg.uk.com/magazine/soloback/




A few key things to consider:

1

Sole Trader (“Own Account”), LLP or Company? After trading for a few years, I converted from sole trader to Limited Company, it made negligible difference to my PI cover costs (despite companies having to have the £3m insurance rather than £2m insurance). You will need to use specific Memorandum & Articles for them to be accepted by the SRA (so they state you are a solicitor, rather than someone who can sell fruit and veg or baked beans...). The Memorandum & Articles were on the SRA website in a leaflet called “Recognised bodies – companies” by the Professional Ethics team.

Do get advice from a decent accountant. For tax reasons it was better for me to be set up as a sole trader for a few years initially, so I could then sell the goodwill to the company I was setting up.

Depending on your situation, it may be different. Looking at the discussions on this on SPG’s LinkedIn forum may help you weigh up the pros and cons of each option.

2

Indemnity insurance is expensive. It is valued as a percentage in relation to your estimated fees and in relation to the insurance market’s perceived risk involved in your work-type. I have heard different arguments for whether to go for a nil excess or not.

SPG’s preferred broker is Prime Professions. The team there are very helpful and they understand the needs of SPs. Some insurers have exclusive deals with them, which are aimed at SPs and small firms. They are also very good when it comes to providing information on that all-important risk management. Visit www.primeprofessions.co.uk or contact Richard Brown: [email protected], 020 7173 2100

You may also wish to try:

QPI (Claire Wills is very knowledgeable and helpful - 01604 712222) http://www.qpilegal.co.uk/ QPI also help with your business plan and have some forms that can assist.

Aon (they only deal with QBE & XL, with whom they have an exclusive agreement. You could try Kim Swestun [email protected], +44 (0)1268 578381).

Please let Claire, Kim & Richard know that I gave you their details – it’s best when us sole practitioners work together to negotiate discounts!

If you start your practice and then finish it, there is a run-off insurance premium to pay (usually 2 or 3 times your annual premium). This could be a huge expense and has to be paid in one chunk, so is a very important consideration.

Insurers often require you to show them your headed notepaper and a business plan including an estimate of your turnover. The BBC website produced some handy information on preparing a business plan at http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A877953 Mine was only one side of A4 and said I was going to be niche firm, specialising in Wills & Probate. It stated what kind of clients I was going to be dealing with and where I’d find them. Just a few bullet points under “Aims”, “Clients”, “Marketing” and, “Strengths”. However, things now need to be a bit more detailed. Have a chat with Claire Wills at QPI (mentioned above), as she’s very helpful on these things and has some forms to assist you!

Claire says “Your Business Plan and Cashflow are critical to obtaining terms from insurers. What needs demonstrating is that you have a viable risk managed business and have the requisite management skills to run the practice. Ill thought out plans and trying to start on your own without thinking through what and how you are going to achieve will not impress. Underwriters know solicitors understand the law but what they really want to see is new start-ups who know how to run a business.”

3

Legal Accounting Software - I waited before buying legal software. I didn’t have a client account at first, so just used Sage initially, but have moved over to software that helps ensure I am compliant with client account rules (the software my firm uses is called Cognito and is great, with very good support - http://www.cognitosoftware.com/ ). SPG’s SOLO magazine has adverts from various software providers who are sole practitioner-orientated. You can see back issues of the magazine at http://www.spg.uk.com/magazine/soloback/

If you have a specific query, raising it on SPG’s LinkedIn forum is a good way to get different views and feedback on products that other SPs are using.



4

I recommend attending a Code of Conduct seminar, so you get to grip with the rules. You are required to have 12 hours of management CPD in order to be “Qualified to supervise” (http://www.spg.uk.com/knowhow/management/). Usually the SRA require 36 months of post qualification experience as a lawyer. Details about the requirements are in the Solicitors Code – Rule 12 of the SRA Practice Framework Rules 2011 - http://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/handbook/introAuthPrac/practising/part3/rule12/content.page

There is the possibility of applying for a waiver, if you don’t have that experience – Rule 21 of the SRA Practice Framework Rules 2011 -http://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/handbook/practising/part5/content.page

5

To help with the wording of your Terms & Conditions & Client Care letters, the Law Society produce a useful booklet “Your Clients - Your Business”. This is available on the Law Society’s website & via SPG’s site at http://www.spg.uk.com/knowhow/clientcare/

6

I have found that many clients like to check my details (after a recommendation or finding me in Yellow Pages) by having a look at my website. I have found it very beneficial to have a website and they do not have to be very complicated or expensive. My own website and SPG’s site are set up and run by Silvia and Gavin at Ilia. They offer special discounts to SPs who wish to create a website and can be contacted at [email protected]

7

It may be that you do not require a Client Account. If that is the case, you must apply to the SRA for a waiver. The rules on this have changed recently, which has led to some discussion on SPG’s LinkedIn forum.

8

Back-up. You may not have given much thought to what happens to your firm if you fell under a bus, or if your computer blew up tomorrow. However, the important thing is protecting your clients and their information. Thinking right from the outset about protecting your clients is vital. You will need:

•A practising solicitor appointed as a Special Executor in your Will (see the KnowHow section of SPG’s website http://www.spg.uk.com/knowhow/continuity/ ).

•A practising solicitor appointed as your attorney to deal specifically with your firm (see the KnowHow section of SPG’s website http://www.spg.uk.com/knowhow/continuity/ )

•Someone being able to access your client account monies (it is currently being considered whether this should be via the facility of a “shadow account” or perhaps having your special executor and attorney as additional signatories on your client account – neither seems particularly satisfactory, so watch this space for more guidance as it becomes available).

•Ensuring that your IT is backed-up, ideally not on a “cloud” that passes information outside the UK, but perhaps on a hard drive that you store at home or somewhere secure so that you could access it if your office burnt down tomorrow.

Not cheery stuff, but best to plan ahead so that a PC dying on you is a minor hiccup swiftly recovered from, rather than a huge headache.

Forums to talk to SPs:SPG have a forum on LinkedIn (www.linkedin.com) which is very useful for networking and asking questions.

There is a brilliant discussion thread about setting up as an SP here - http://www.linkedin.com/groupItem?view=&gid=3338456&type=member&item=63301788&commentID=47802287&report%2Esuccess=8ULbKyXO6NDvmoK7o030UNOYGZKrvdhBhypZ_w8EpQrrQI-BBjkmx-wkEOwBjLE28YyDIxcyEO7_TA_giuRN#commentID_47802287

You can also sign up for the TalkBack forum on our website.

SPG has an annual conference, usually in May, which is always useful for bringing yourself up-to-date on things that affect management of your firm and is a great opportunity to meet suppliers (IT software, indemnity insurance etc) and most importantly you can socialise and exchange ideas with fellow Sole practitioners!

I hope that helps, but please don’t hesitate to get in touch if you have any questions or want to discuss things!

Good luck!



About the Business of Law BlogIndependent lawyers, sole practitioners and smaller law firms are under siege. ABS, the SRA, the Law Society and Legal Ombudsman are ramping up the pressure – and all on top of the daily challenges and decisions that smaller businesses face: what level of Professional Indemnity Insurance to take, why spend money on marketing, how to get clients and keep them coming back for more.

Who has the time to actually practice law?The Business of Law blog has been set up by experts, for experts. For lawyers to share knowledge with other lawyers about how to not just survive these more competitive times, but to thrive. In time, we hope to build the definitive resource for independent lawyers. An online destination that can help us all do business better. What we like to call: a thrival guide for these troubled times.

For further information about this guide or the Business of Law Blog, please contact Lizz Brocklesby: [email protected] 020 7400 2904

For further information about LexisNexis, please contact Sarah Plaka: [email protected] 020 7400 2960

About Karen PurdyKaren Purdy set up Purdys Solicitors in 2003, as a niche private client firm. She is a sole principal and heads a team of specialist solicitors, advising on Trusts, Wills, Probate and Contentious Probate.

Karen graduated in Law from Trinity College, Cambridge and then studied at the College of Law in Guildford. Karen has practical and

academic experience, having been a co-author of legal texts, presented seminars and is also a Member of the Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners (STEP).

Karen is a Committee Member and former Chairman of the Sole Practitioners Group (SPG).

About the SPGThe Sole Practitioners Group (SPG) is a group representing and supporting sole practitioner solicitors in England and Wales. Now independent, they were previously a “Recognised Group” of the Law Society. SPG supports members through local groups, their website, organising conferences and publishing SOLO magazine.

About LexisNexisOver the past 200 years, LexisNexis has combined a deep understanding of the legal profession with technology innovation to help practitioners work more productively, advise with confidence and better manage their organisations. Today, our services help lawyers - of all shapes and sizes - apply legal intelligence to better meet clients’ needs.

With 23 practice areas to choose from - and prices and packages that reflect the number of fee earners in your firm, visit: www.lexislegalintelligence.co.uk

A division of Reed Elsevier (UK) Ltd. Registered office 1-3 Strand London WC2N 5JR. Registered in England number 2746621. VAT Registered No. GB 730 8595 20. LexisNexis and the Knowledge Burst logo are trademarks of Reed Elsevier Properties Inc. © LexisNexis 2013 0513-014. The information in this brochure is current as of June 2013 and is subject to change without notice.


Willis Limited, Registered number: 181116 England and Wales.Registered address: 51 Lime Street, London EC3M 7DQ.A Lloyd’s Broker. Authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority.

14606/02/14

GrowinG from strenGth to strenGth...

Prime Professions are now a fully integrated part of the Willis Group, one of the largest insurance and reinsurance brokers in the world.

Committed to client service and cost effective solutions the team now have the added benefits of Willis’ global resources and market influence.

ProfessionALinDemnitY

To find out more contact :

Richard Brown [email protected] 020 3193 9442

Helen [email protected] 3193 9408

Scott Thorne [email protected] 020 3193 9407

Kate [email protected] 282 2971

www.willisfinexglobal.com/sole.html

14606_A4 SOLO Advert.indd 1 28/02/2014 17:15:53

solo the spg journal - spg.uk.comspg.uk.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/solo_autumn-2014.pdf · solo...

Documents