ALCD warns on uninsured costs advisors
The Association of Law Costs Draftsmen (ALCD) has warned insurers that law firms instructing unqualified people to carry out costs work on cases are risking a large professional indemnity (PI) claim if the advisors do not deliver on time and to a high standard.
Iain Stark, chairman of the ALCD says: “Many law firms instruct unregulated and uninsured people to draw up complex bills of costs. If a mistake or a delay in delivering the bill of costs is detrimental to the client, the client can – and will – sue the law firm for compensation and the firm will pass that claim on to the costs advisor. If the advisor does not have PI insurance the law firm’s own insurer will be picking up the compensation bill.
“We have reports of several mistakes and delays in bills of costs resulting in compensation claims, some for hundreds of thousands of pounds. Law firms, and their insurers, stand to foot the bill if they employ uninsured and unqualified people to carry out costs work.
“The ALCD is urging insurers to insist that their law firm clients instruct only costs lawyers who have full PI insurance and whose standards are regulated, to eliminate the risk of a claim being made on the law firm’s PI insurance.”
The ALCD is opening talks with insurers to spell out the potential cost of their law firm clients engaging uninsured people to carry out costs work. Iain Stark explains:
“There are literally thousands of people offering themselves for costs work, most of whom are untrained and unregulated. Only members of the ALCD are regulated and a stipulation of membership is that they carry adequate PI insurance.
“This is an insurance accident waiting to happen and the sooner costs lawyers are fully regulated and forced to carry PI insurance the faster the problem will be solved.”
Legal Aid to be cut
This week the new Justice Secretary, Kenneth Clarke, announced the biggest reforms to the Legal Aid system since it was founded.
Reform of Legal Aid has been due for some time, and even Labour acknowledged they would have cut spending on Legal Aid had they been returned to government.
However, the legal profession itself is surprised at the scale of cuts being proposed.
The news is covered in detail on the BBC website, with further information on where the cuts will fall and will not fall:
Legal aid will be cut for a wide range of civil cases, including:
-
Divorce, welfare benefits and school exclusion appeals
Employment
Immigration where the person is not detained
Clinical negligence and personal injury
Legal aid funding will continue for:
-
Asylum cases
Mental health cases
Debt and housing matters where someone’s home is at immediate risk
Family law cases involving domestic violence, forced marriage or child abduction
As the Telegraph’s Neil O’Brien reports, there have been a number of attempts by successive governments to reform Legal Aid, not least to reduce the bill from it’s current £2.1 billion cost.
And he even argues that cuts can go further.
However, with more than 30 consultations over the past 15 years, it remains to be seen just how successful the current coalition government plans will be.
Christmas IS a Legal Holiday – Get Over It
Christmas is a time for family, gifts, food, and a day off from work. Every year it also becomes a major jumping off point for both sides of the “separation of church and state” argument.
It’s never been an issue around me or my family, but it has always struck me as curious. People want to ban the symbol of the holiday, and yet they would THROW A FIT about if the holiday was ever taken away. I decided to dig into the holiday a little farther.
My first stop was Webster’s dictionary. Here, Christmas is defined as a festival celebrating the birth of Christ. So it would only make sense to show a visual of this birth – much like the fireworks at the 4th of July are used as a reminder of the cannons and gunfire from the war.
A quick (although not very thorough) search of the internet found that the federal holiday of Christmas has been around since 1870. Wikipedia says that Christmas is an annual holiday that celebrates the birth of Jesus. But a judge ruled recently that the Christmas Holiday is secular – rejecting a suit that said the federal Christmas holiday violated the First Amendment.
Clearly, Christmas is the celebration of Christ (as the name implies). To say otherwise, no matter how many snowmen or Santa’s may grace the streets, is just wrong. If people don’t like the holiday, then they should boycott it and go to work. That would show the government. Otherwise, enjoy the break and find something legitimate to squawk about.
Judge or get off the bench
A judge’s only purpose should be to enforce the law, not to dictate what that law should be. If only all the judge’s in the United States could have the fortitude it took Leonard Frieling to step down because of his beliefs, then this whole country would be better off.
A few months back, the city of Lafayette began the process to increase the penalties for the possession of marijuana beyond what the state of Colorado requires. A person caught in the city limits could face up to a year in jail and a $1,000 fine.
The Boulder criminal-defense lawyer, who had served as a backup Municipal Judge for eight years, said he could not enforce a law he did not agree with. In his opinion, the war against marijuana is wrong.
I applaud the fact that he is stepping down, because anyone who can’t put aside his personal views and enforce the law has no right behind the bench at any level. Maybe his attitude will be catching and dozens upon dozens of judges will step down because they are unable or unwilling to enforce laws they don’t believe in.Â
If nothing else, it would bring an end to judicial activism!