I have believed since the start of this a few years ago that one of the key tricks that has been played was that when the fact that a high standard had been set, it meant that NRPSI interpreters were hard to push about. By moving the goalposts and diluting the definition of what was allowed to be described as an interpreter, numbers would go up. One fatal flaw in this approach has been to ignore the fact that numerical superiority doesn’t guarantee quality by any stretch of the imagination even though this very reason was given on 5 July last year in one of the Interpretation Project’s own communiqués that this was why the NRPSI situation could not continue, that the DPSI was not a reliable guarantee of quality. Well – it was the best we had. I am confident the arguments of those who warned against the decision to use an agency have been vindicated.

I’d like to say something else that might be of use to those who could possibly benefit from a longer view than the kind of knee-jerk short-termism that I think has brought about this ill-conceived plan to save money.

In the NRPSI alone, there was a base of 2300 qualified practitioners. Language service providers on the NRPSI may be qualified and permitted to practice in the Criminal Justice System but a great many also hold qualifications in conference interpreting and in written translation, and in some instances, those people are involved in work in the private sector.

If instead of abandoning that model, any weaknesses (which I believe were wildly overemphasised) being worked on, resolved, strengthened, would only lead to a stronger work force of qualified interpreters and translators. The very nature of language services is that it is by definition a global market and documents are sent to translators in the UK for translation either directly from companies and government agencies in other countries, or by agencies operating in the private sector in those countries. Every time a translator based in the UK does a translation, that income enters the UK economy.

If you help a profession to become stronger, the better the chances are that those people will grow in number and prosper.

I will give an example of one way in which the UK lags desperately behind some other countries: we do not have any system of ‘Certified’ or ‘Sworn’ translators. I am talking about written translation of documents, not interpreting. I have been asked to do translations where I am asked if I am a Sworn or Certified translator. The nearest equivalent in the UK is being a member of a body such as the ITI, IOL, APCI, but this is not the same as being a Sworn Translator.

In some instances, it has been good enough to use my memberships of these organisations for this, but in others, the ‘nearest next-best thing’ approach is not deemed good enough and the client has to turn me down. If there was a system where translators could be Sworn Translators in a simple black-and-white scenario in which you either ARE or are NOT a Sworn Translator, this alone would give practitioners a far clearer market for their skills.

We don’t have it for public service interpreting and we don’t have it for official translation. What we have is a mess. You used to have to have a certain qualification for interpreting in someone’s Crown Court trial but you have never had to have any particular qualification to interpret in someone’s medical appointments, sometimes potentially about life/death issues, nor to translate personal documents. This is partly because in the UK, the culture of farming out staggering tranches of this work to agencies has been the norm.

It should have gone the other way – it should have been a case of trying to bring a properly structured system into the public services on a wider basis, where instead of Googling, a solicitor in need of an interpreter will first think of the NRPSI to make their booking, where instead of an agency, a hospital has a booking centre similar to the one Petty France had for the Family Courts.

In the UK, and only in some sectors and from some standpoints, having qualifications is merely viewed as ‘helpful’, and it is far from across the board. It is not befitting of a country that thinks of itself as an advanced nation. It is barely possible to overstate how wrong that is.

What we have is a race to the bottom.

What we need is a robust profession, protected by statute, whose practitioners can add to the economy as well as acceptance of the arguments already given as to why outsourcing won’t help save money. A positive circle, please, instead of this negative cycle.

Article source: http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/moj-admits-teething-problems-interpreters

India’s much-vaunted ‘road map’ for the liberalisation of its £2.6bn legal services market has inched closer to reality following a high court ruling in a case concerning magic circle and international firms.

In a ruling yesterday, the Chennai high court gave foreign firms the right to practise in India on a ‘fly-in, fly-out’ basis when advising clients on non-Indian law. They may also act in commercial arbitrations and be involved in legal process outsourcing (LPO) companies, the court ruled.

However, the court again confirmed that under the country’s Advocates Act 1961, British solicitors are not permitted to practise domestic Indian law – litigation or non-litigation – in India.

The ruling arose from a petition filed by Indian lawyer AK Balaji asking the court to take action against foreign law firms and lawyers ‘illegally practising’ in India. Balaji cited the Advocates Act, which says that only citizens of India with a law degree from a recognised Indian university can practise in the country. Practitioners must also be enrolled in a state Bar Council, he said.

The only exception to this rule was where there was a reciprocal arrangement between two countries, allowing each country’s lawyers to practise in the other; there is no such reciprocal arrangement between India and the UK, Balaji said.

Other reasons cited by Balaji to bar British solicitors included their treating the profession as a commercial enterprise, whereas in India the law was considered a ‘noble profession, intended to serve society, and not treated as a business venture’.

The high court ruled that there is no bar for foreign law firms or lawyers to visit India for a temporary period on a ‘fly-in and fly-out’ basis to give legal advice regarding their own or other foreign law systems. There is similarly no bar against acting in international commercial arbitration or providing a legal process outsourcing service.

However, it ruled: ‘Foreign law firms or foreign lawyers cannot practise the profession of the law in India either on the litigation or non-litigation side, unless they fulfil the requirement of the Advocates Act 1961 and the Bar Council of India Rules.’

Law Society President John Wotton welcomed the ruling: ‘This clarification will enable English and Welsh lawyers to meet a clear need from Indian clients, who operate in an increasingly globalised economy, for advice on foreign law, delivered in India on a “fly-in – fly-out” basis. Our members have an immense regard for the professionalism of our Indian colleagues, and look forward to working more closely together with them on cases which have an international dimension.’

Article source: http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/ruling-takes-foreign-lawyers-further-passage-india

Filed Underdetailed assessment  

One of the proposed changes to the provisional assessment pilot is:

“When lodging documents for PA the parties should file (a) any open offer and (b) in a sealed envelope any offer under Part 36”.

Now, filing sealed offers is very sensible and answers the problem I raised last year when the pilot was first launched (see Provisional Assessment Pilot – Unanswered problems).

But why open and sealed offers? What is the open offer for? If the other party has accepted the open offer there is no need for an assessment.

Can a paying party make an open offer of £10,000 on the bill which the judge can “accept” without bothering to go through the bill?  Then the judge can open the sealed Part 36 offers to see who to award the assessment costs to (eg the paying party if they made a Part 36 offer of £11,000). That should cut the judicial time down to below the current 37 minutes. If not, what is the judge meant to do with the open offer?

Please explain.

One Response to “Open offers in provisional assessments”

1. annon on
   February 22nd, 2012 8:48 am

   I presume that it is so that if a paying party makes a rubbish offer of circa 30% of the Bill then it is immediately brought to the judges attention

Leave a Reply

Article source: http://www.gwslaw.co.uk/2012/02/open-offers-in-provisional-assessments/

Plans for the Legal Ombudsman to handle complaints about claims management companies will benefit consumers and the legal profession, according to the chief ombudsman.

Proposals to bring complaints about claims management into the scheme’s remit were confirmed at this week’s meeting of the Office for Legal Complaints. Earlier this year, LeO and the Ministry of Justice, which regulates claims management companies, signed an understanding to share information on any breaches of existing rules.

Chief ombudsman Adam Sampson, blogging on the LeO website, said the plans had almost unanimous support from across the legal sector.

He said: ‘For consumers, we are offering the promise of wider access to redress. For the profession, an equalising of the playing field.’ He also said the operating cost of his organisation would be shared more widely. As part of the memorandum of understanding, agreed in January, the MoJ will advise on the rules surrounding regulation of claims management companies.

In return, LeO will supply the MoJ with information about the number of complaints and any trends they may indicate. Meanwhile, a company handling complaints for the Legal Ombudsman has apologised for a change of address that left solicitor firms giving wrong information to clients.

Under the Solicitors Regulation Authority code of conduct, clients must be informed at all times of their right to complain to the ombudsman and ways of doing so.

However, the ombudsman changed its address last year when its previous mail scanning contractor was taken over. Firms should change LeO’s postal address in their terms of business and on their websites to ensure clients’ right to complain is not inhibited. The correct address is PO Box 6806 Wolverhampton, WV1 9WJ.

Article source: http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/ombudsman-confirms-move-claims-management

Manchester-based personal injury firm Express Solicitors has announced £3m expansion plans and the creation of 40 new jobs in a bid to become an alternative business structure with a £10m turnover within four years.

Over the next year, the 12-year-old firm plans to move to a £1m new property and double its marketing spend to £1.5m. Staff numbers will increase by 50% to 120 through the recruitment of fee earners and support staff.

As an existing legal disciplinary practice, the firm must become an ABS, and a spokeswoman said it would be ‘fully embracing the ABS concept’ and had plans to build further companies in the PI sector.

Partner Robin Patey (pictured) said expansion was essential following changes to the rules over law firm ownership that will ‘inevitably lead to the consolidation of smaller firms’. He said: ’Despite the economic downturn, we wanted to expand the firm rather than consolidate.

‘Even though we had a fantastic 2011, we still only have a small market share in what is a very buoyant sector.

‘It is our ambition to become one of the major national players; yet one which remains independent and continues to deal directly with the public rather than work through claims management companies.’

The firm, which has six partners and 36 fee earners, reported pre-tax profits of £1.36m for the last financial year on income of £4.15m.

Article source: http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/abs-aspirant-express-announces-3m-expansion

We must campaign against proposed Coalition Government plans to force some long-term sick and disabled people being forced to work as revealed in the Guardian last week.

The Guardian reports that the policy could mean those on employment and support allowance who have been placed in the work-related activity group (Wrag) could be compelled to undertake work experience for charities, public bodies and high-street retailers. The Wrag group includes those who have been diagnosed with terminal cancer but have more than six months to live; accident and stroke victims; and some of those with mental health issues.

The newspaper states this could affect over 300,000 in the Wrag group.

As a solicitor who acts for asbestos related cancer sufferers such as mesothelioma and asbestos related lung cancers, I am appalled at these proposals. No-one who has terminal cancer should be forced to work. They need to spend their last few precious months with friends and family, organising their affairs and coming to terms with their diagnosis. The additional stress this scheme could put on them is intolerable, unfair and unjust in a society that should be looking after our sick not forcing them to work.

The biggest irony in all this is that we have millions of fit and healthy unemployed young people desperate to work – why doesn’t this government concentrate on finding them jobs instead of penalising the sick and disabled?

Here at Pannone solicitors we specialise in assisting victims of asbestos related disease and cancer such as mesothelioma to obtain compensation. Call 0800 0384 384 for free legal advice.  

Comments

No comments have been left yet. Be the first!

Article source: http://blog.pannone.com/personal-injury-listing/personal-injury-blog/forcing-sick-and-disabled-people-to-work-is-morally-wrong

The Humberside Fire And Rescue Service has issued a safety warning about carbon monoxide.

This has arisen as a result of fire fighters visiting homes as part of the community safety programme and getting an increasing number of enquiries from residents about whether the smoke detectors they fit also work as carbon monoxide detectors. The fire service are concerned that people think that smoke detectors will also alert them to the presence of carbon monoxide in their home, which is incorrect.

Your home should have both a smoke detector and a carbon monoxide (CO) detector to ensure your safety. A CO detector is completely different from a smoke detector and you can buy one from a hardware/DIY store for about £15-£20.

Here at Pannone Solicitors, we would urge you to buy one today. Carbon Monoxide otherwise known as the “silent killer” cannot be smelt, tasted or seen and it is a deadly gas that claims the lives of many each year. A detector could save your life.

We have a specialist team here at Pannone who deal with claims for compensation for victims of carbon monoxide poisoning where they have been poisoned due to the negligence of another person. If you suspect that you have been poisoned by carbon monoxide or other noxious gases please call us on 0800 0384 384 or click here.

Comments

No comments have been left yet. Be the first!

Article source: http://blog.pannone.com/personal-injury-listing/personal-injury-blog/do-you-know-the-difference-between-a-smoke-detector-and-a-carbon-monoxide-detector

Four children have been treated for carbon monoxide poisoning from after fumes were detected in their school bus near Swaffham on Monday 20th February 2012.

Paramedics and the Fire Service were called when the alert was raised by pupils on the bus who could smell exhaust fumes.

Ambulance crews treated the children at the scene and two were taken to the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Lynn, as they were having trouble breathing.

Here at Pannone solicitors we specialise in assisting victims of carbon monoxide poisoning to obtain compensation for their injuries, where the poisoning has occurred through the negligence of another. Call 0800 0384 384 for free legal advice.

Comments

No comments have been left yet. Be the first!

Article source: http://blog.pannone.com/personal-injury-listing/personal-injury-blog/carbon-monoxide-close-call-children-on-school-bus-poisoned-by-fumes

During February and March, inspectors from the Health Safety Executive (HSE) will be visiting sites where refurbishment or repair works are being carried out. This is part of a national drive to improve standards in one of the Britain’s most dangerous industries.

Their primary focus will be high-risk activity such as working at height and also ‘good order’ such as ensuring sites are clean and tidy with clear access routes.

The purpose of the initiative is to remind those working in construction that poor standards are unacceptable, and could result in enforcement action.

During 2010/11, 50 workers were killed while working in construction and 2298 major injuries were reported. Falls from height remains one of the most common causes of fatalities and major injuries in the construction sector in Great Britain, with more than five incidents recorded every day.

Philip White, HSE Chief Inspector of Construction, said:

“The refurbishment sector continues to be the most risky for construction workers, all too often straightforward practical precautions are not considered and workers are put at risk. In many cases simple changes to working practices can make all the difference.”

Article source: http://www.lawfordkidd.co.uk/Latest-News/Entry/accident-at-work/hse-clampdown-to-reduce-death-and-injury-on-construction-sites.html

Filed UnderLegal Costs  

Forthcoming change to Costs Practice Direction with new 40.5A:

“40.5A Unless the court otherwise orders, if the only dispute between the parties concerns disbursements, the hearing shall take place in the absence of the parties on the basis of the documents filed and the court will issue its decision in writing.”

Nice.

Leave a Reply

Article source: http://www.gwslaw.co.uk/2012/02/disbursements-only-no-hearing/