Dr Aisha Bijlani allegedly bombarded Richard Howlett with emails, some abusive, after he refused to take her case pro bono
An arrest warrant has been issued for a London barrister who allegedly harassed a fellow lawyer after he refused to take on her case on a pro bono basis.
Richard Howlett, a partner in a small London practice, met Dr Aisha Bijlani, who originally qualified as a doctor before switching to law, at an event and identified her as a potential client when she revealed legal difficulties she was experiencing, CourtNewsUK (£) reports.
During a follow-up meeting, Bijlani asked Howlett to take her on a pro bono basis, which he declined, pointing to the fact they were a small firm.
According to the report, Bijlani then sent a series of emails, a number of which were abusive, accusing Howlett of “abetting fraud and racism”, and that she was considering bringing private prosecutions against a number of people.
Despite being issued with a harassment warning by police in May 2017, Bijlani continued to send emails containing further accusations of racism and claims that the firm owed her money. The former 4 New Square barrister reportedly told Howlett she’d accept £5 million in full and final settlement. Bijlani is also said to have emailed a number of public bodies including the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Howett, founder and managing director of Selachii, a firm that specialises in fintech and commercial litigation, told the court: “What really started to trouble me is when she started to call me racist. Allegations of that nature are very serious and could have a profound effect on my career. She is very active on social media, allegations against High Court judges.”
Bijlani had denied harassment without violence but finding the charge proved and issuing a warrant for her arrest, deputy senior district judge Tan Ikram said: “There is no justification for the demand in these emails, they are without basis and without merit.”
The 51-year-old was convicted of harassment in 2007 and given a conditional discharge. She appealed the conviction and was left with a £10,000 legal bill when the appeal failed in 2010, according to the report. Bijlani also took her former chambers to an employment tribunal arguing her career prospects were held back by racist attitudes, but lost that case too.
Comments on this article are closed for legal reasons.
That early, hands-on experience helps prepare students for legal practice is something that Laura Pinkney, head of Nottingham Law School’s Legal Advice Centre, firmly believes.
Her own background speaks to this. It started with a sandwich placement Pinkney completed as part of her four-year undergraduate law course at Nottingham Trent University (NTU). She chose to spend that year with national outfit Cartwright King Solicitors (CK), and stayed with the firm for 16 years. The next step after the placement was a stint as a paralegal before studying the Legal Practice Course (LPC) part-time at Nottingham Law School, alongside her training contract. Pinkney, who specialised in fraud and confiscation, qualified in 2008 and seven years later, made partner. She was the first at the firm to have progressed from placement student to partnership.
But it was her longing to further her career in access to justice and legal education that recently saw her take a new career path. As a solicitor at CK Pinkney often undertook legal aid work but sweeping cuts to legal aid made it difficult to give cases the time and attention they deserved whilst remaining commercially viable. So, with access to justice in mind, the NTU alumna went back to her roots. Pinkney joined NTU in January this year to lead its Legal Advice Centre — a decision that was also influenced by years of experience involved in trainee development while at CK, her post as president of the Nottinghamshire Law Society (the youngest in its 144-year history) and chair of its Education and Training Committee. “It was the perfect blend of everything I believed in,” reflects Pinkney.
Under her leadership the Legal Advice Centre, which is an accredited teaching law firm, has gone from strength to strength. Last academic year saw 324 NTU law students (from first-years right through to postgraduates) actively participate on 374 cases. Pinkney strongly recommends that students get involved in the practical side of things. Casting her mind back to her own year-long sandwich placement and the rewards she reaped there, Pinkney thinks working in a clinical legal setting gives students an “edge”. She continues:
“The application process for training contracts is now so competitive, and experience of working within a professional law firm, such as ours, helps students to stand out. They can share interesting examples of working with real clients on cases, and that is invaluable to both students and their future employers.”
It doesn’t stop there. Student volunteers often have to juggle their study commitments alongside their involvement in the Centre (whether extra-curricular or as part of a module towards an assessment), and that involves having good time-management skills. There’s a shared work space, too, and students team up to offer drop in clinic sessions while building rapport with colleagues. One of the most important skills to be gained, however, is communication. “A student could have amazing academic credentials but if they can’t sit down with a client and relay to them, in normal language, the law, or empathise with them and gain their trust, they won’t make a very good lawyer,” says Pinkney. She has seen first-hand the confidence of students grow: “Some students are terrified to even pick up the phone upon starting and those are the ones that may go on to conduct advocacy later down the line.”
Indeed, the ability to conduct advocacy is one huge perk to getting involved with the Centre which received the official Alternative Business Structure (ABS) seal in 2015, giving it its novel teaching law firm status. “One of the drivers behind us receiving an ABS license was to offer our clients a full service: where we can see cases right through from start to finish,” explains Pinkney. Alongside this, students are able to run their own cases which may include conducting their own advocacy under the supervision of qualified solicitors. Students represent clients in tribunals at the county court in Nottinghamshire and the surrounding areas and Pinkney says some have even received feedback from judges who comment on the quality of their submissions and advocacy.
Then there’s the early introduction to professional ethics and compliance that NTU students get — solicitor-knowhow you wouldn’t necessarily expect your average law grad to have. The teaching law firm is even looking to introduce time recording and a case management system to better simulate the work of a solicitor.
It’s a model that Pinkney thinks will spread: “A lot of regulatory compliance has put some law schools off the idea given the amount of resources and time needed… but I’m surprised more aren’t tapping into this space.” This in mind does Pinkney think that more law schools should focus their efforts on clinical legal education? The answer is a resounding yes for the reason that the skills students learn are transferrable to all sorts of roles and not just limited to legal practice. That student too afraid to answer the phone? With the four supervising solicitors’ training, support and feedback at the Centre, students, Pinkney says, flourish on a personal level too.
Certainly the work undertaken — which includes free legal advice on social welfare, housing, family, employment, business, commercial and intellectual property, as well as affordable, paid-for commercial assistance to social enterprises, small businesses and start-ups — is incredibly rewarding. NTU announced in March it had recouped over £3 million in compensation and benefits for clients in just five years, with almost one third of the substantial seven-figure sum recovered last year. “That was a massive milestone and was really good for the team to see their efforts printed in black and white,” says Pinkney. The firm succeeds in 90% of the social welfare cases it takes on, and on one occasion student Francesca Shellard achieved a whopping £45,000 award on behalf of her client during a social security tribunal hearing. “The work we do can be life-changing for our clients, all of whom are from the local community. They are grateful to us for providing access to justice.” Indeed, they are, and when we met, I was impressed by the colourful array of ‘thank you’ cards dotted along the Centre’s walls.
Pinkney will kick off the afternoon panel session on clinical legal education at Wednesday’s Legal CheekFuture of Legal Education and Training Conference 2019. The session, which is new for this year’s Conference, will touch on the benefits of acquiring experiential learning experience during the undergraduate law degree.
What can we expect to hear from Pinkney? She’s hoping to give an overview of how the teaching law firm works, the benefits of operating as a regulated law firm, and the distinction between that and a university law clinic. We’ll also hear what’s next for the Legal Advice Centre — the only Free Representation Unit outside London. Pinkney tells me she’s very excited about expanding the service offering to other areas where there is an unmet legal need. The Centre is also gearing up for the major changes set to be brought by the Solicitors Qualifying Examination (SQE) when it comes into force in autumn 2021, and Pinkney notes the important role the Centre will play in SQE2 preparation and qualifying work experience (QWE).
Exclusive interview: AI and online courts will flourish and replace ‘old ways of working’
Professor Richard Susskind
The 2020s will be the key years for the legal profession, according to Professor Richard Susskind, who spoke to exclusively to Legal Cheek ahead of his keynote speech at yesterday’s Future of Legal Education and Training Conference 2019.
“It’s [2020s] the decade when many of the radical tech-led programmes being designed now will really come to life: namely artificial intelligence and online courts. These will replace our old ways of working,” Susskind said.
The top futurologist, who is currently advising the Lord Chief Justice on the UK’s online court-future, argues that there is a choice for lawyers now. He told us:
“If you are a young lawyer or you are running a law firm, you should ask yourself, should I compete with these AI/online systems or should I be one of those who is building these systems? Which will you do?”
Susskind is convincing in his belief that the next generation of lawyers will have a different job to do: “Lawyers will less and less simply advise clients, they will build systems that will, in turn, advise clients.”
If this is the future, then this impacts on what legal education and training will look like, according to Susskind:
“If you are going to simply compete with AI, then you may feel that the current system of training is fit for purpose. But if you want to be involved in that latter project I outlined, in building and design, then may be you would argue that your training needs have changed, that legal education needs to adapt to be fit for future purposes.”
There is a concern, however, that many young lawyers do not have proper insight into this: “I don’t think they really appreciate how significant a shift there will be.”
Susskind does agree that there has been a “far wider acceptance of change within the profession” since he has been working in this area, and that we have got to a stage where the conversation is not about “if” but about “when”. But there are still issues which lawyers struggle to overcome. He continued:
“Lawyers worry about AI because they think that the machine will simply replace him or her: that if someone were to break the job down into specific tasks, they’ll believe that the machine will ‘take’ a percentage of that. We call this the ‘AI fallacy’. It is not either as straightforward or as bleak as that: AI does not replicate what a lawyer does, it has a problem that needs solving and finds a machine-like way to solve it.”
In researching for his next book, Online Courts and the Future of Justice, being published in November, Susskind explained how he has been looking at the challenge of law and tech in global terms: he said there are great things happening in many countries such as Canada, China and Singapore. Luckily for the UK, it appears, there is also “good work” being done here, for instance, with the judiciary taking a lead on online courts.
Drove there while over the alcohol limit, according to SRA decision
A trainee solicitor has been told he can no longer work in the legal profession after turning up to represent a client at a police station with cocaine.
The regulator’s notice states: “During his employment Mr Mawdsley attended a police station as a police station representative. While there he was breathalysed and found to be over the limit, having driven there. He also had cocaine in his possession.”
Mawdsley was just five months into his training contract when he was dismissed by the firm in January 2018. He was given a written rebuke and made the subject of a section 43 order, which prevents him from working in a law firm without prior permission from the SRA. Mawdsley was also ordered to pay costs of £600. The regulator confirmed he was not currently working for an authorised firm.
A chance to get behind the scenes at the Royal Courts of Justice
The High Court is recruiting up to 36 junior lawyers to work as assistants to its judges.
The coveted judicial assistant (JA) role involves doing research and summarising documents for High Court judges as they hear and decide cases. It is similar to the long-established system of judicial clerkships in the United States.
Applications opened yesterday for placements beginning in October 2019. The judges are targeting “qualified barristers and solicitors in the early stages of their legal career” in particular. JAs will get “a close view of the trial process and first instance decision-making from the perspective of the judge” and around £2,500 a month.
The High Court role is a little different to the JA schemes run by the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court. The appeal courts employ assistants for almost a full year (see the Supreme Court’s official Insta feed for details), whereas High Court JAs will only be taken on for between three and five months.
The High Court has previously recruited JAs for commercial cases, but is now expanding the scheme to cover all three of its divisions. Applicants can nominate a preference to work in one of the following:
Chancery Division
Family Division
Queen’s Bench Division
Commercial Court
Technology and Construction Court
Administrative Court
Queen’s Bench Division Civil
Potential JAs can also ask for a three or five-month placement. If everyone were recruited for three months, there would be 36 spots available in total.
Those keen on “discussions with High Court judges on difficult points of law and procedure” will need to have at least a 2.1 degree and “practical experience in legal research and writing”. Experience as a junior solicitor, barrister or legal academic is also “desirable” and applicants will need to be available full time. Anyone still in the middle of their degree need not apply, in other words.
Brandsmiths rookie was responding to disclosure request
A High Court judge has criticised a law firm after one of its rookies fired off a letter which described opposing solicitors as “imbecilic”.
The cheeky missive was sent by London law firm Brandsmiths in response to a disclosure request by opposing solicitors in ATB Sales Ltd v Rich Energy Ltd & Anor, a case concerning a copyright dispute between Rich Energy Haas Formula 1 motor racing team and a bicycle designer and manufacturer.
The letter, purported to have been drafted by a trainee solicitor, said: “This is quite frankly an imbecilic request by you.”
“I do not believe I should let that pass without comment”, Her Honour Judge Melissa Clarke said in her judgment. “I do not consider that there are any circumstances in which one solicitor in the course of his professional duties should accuse another in writing of making imbecilic requests.”
Continuing, Judge Clarke said that if a trainee solicitor had indeed sent the letter, then it “suggests a failure by the supervising solicitor properly to supervise.” When Brandsmiths did comply with the request, Judge Clarke noted it was done with “a great deal of harrumphing”.
The claimant, Whytes Bikes, sought an injunction to require the removal of a logo, a silhouette of a stag’s head, from the Formula 1 race car and website of the Rich Energy Haas Formula 1 motor racing team. Judge Clarke went on to rule that Whytes Bikes’ copyright was infringed and they were entitled to injunctive relief and damages.
An experienced law firm partner who made an “inappropriate and offensive” comment relating to a client’s disability has been rebuked by the regulator.
Richard Anthony Bull, a solicitor at Essex law firm A.H. Page, was instructed in a probate matter by a client who was registered blind and in deteriorating health.
In April 2018, the woman, referred to only as “Client A”, attended the firm’s office to request that a form be enlarged further. It was at this point, according to the agreement, Bull told the client that further enlargement was not possible, before asking her: “Do you want me to come to your house and paint it all over the walls?”
Bull immediately apologised for the comment, which was made in front of others at the firm, but the client reported the incident to the regulator, saying it made her feel belittled and discriminated against.
Bull, who continues to represent the client, admitted that by making the remark, he’d failed to maintain the trust the public places in him and not carried out his role in a way that encourages equality of opportunity and respect for diversity.
In deciding that the agreed outcome was proportionate, the regulator noted that the comment was made in a moment of frustration, he had apologised immediately to the client and had expressed remorse for his actions.
Bull considers that he has always had a good relationship with the client, which remains ongoing, and both he and his wife have provided the client with support outside of the solicitor-client relationship.
Freshfields has upped the financial support its future trainees receive during their time studying the Graduate Diploma Law (GDL) by a healthy 38%, Legal Cheek can reveal.
Soon-to-be trainees at the Anglo-German giant will now receive £10,000 in living support, up from a previous rate of £7,250. The move sees Freshfields become only the second magic circle outfit to dish out the coveted five-figure sum, following a similar move by Clifford Chance earlier this month. Freshfields also offers future trainees £10,000 in maintenance support during their time on the Legal Practice Course (LPC).
The firm’s trainee development partner, Craig Montgomery, told Legal Cheek:
“We are committed to recruiting and retaining the very best talent in the market and invest in our people at every step of their career with the firm.”
Elsewhere, Allen & Overy offers its TC holders £9,000 in financial support during the GDL, while their counterparts at Linklaters and Slaughter and May receive £8,000, respectively. Legal Cheek’s Firms Most List shows that US outfit Sidley Austin tops the GDL maintenance market with £11,000.
Freshfields’ GDL maintenance uplift comes just weeks after we revealed the firm had boosted the salaries of its newly qualified (NQ) lawyers to £100,000 — an impressive uplift of £15,000 or 18%. The money move, which saw the firm rocket to the top of the magic circle NQ pay table, puts its young associates on the same levels of cash as those at US outfit Covington & Burling (£100,000) and just behind those at US titan Sullivan & Cromwell (£101,500).
A legal outfit has become one of the first UK businesses to embrace a four-day working week in a bid to reduce the stress levels of its staff.
Bosses at Portcullis Legals, a Plymouth-based business which isn’t regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), claim staff and customers have welcomed the shake-up, which sees the office open later into the evening to accommodate the hours lost by the reduction in working days.
The wills and probate specialist has also given its nine-strong workforce a pay rise to eliminate concerns that the change in hours might simply be a cost-cutting exercise, Plymouth Live reports.
“I’ve contacted businesses far and wide to find out the benefits and pitfalls of the four-day week, working with academics and industry leaders to find out the best way to apply the four-day week to Portcullis,” managing director, Trevor Worth, said. “The response has been extraordinary and there’s a real passion to help other firms achieve a happier working week for their staff.”
Following a successful five-month trial, the business has now embraced the new four-day format on a permanent basis. Worth added:
“Our staff have been more motivated and productive — I’m delighted we’ve been able to make it work and provide an even better service for customers, and a great working environment for our team. Values and purpose are very important to us, as is the well-being of every team member.”
Yasmin Serter, a member of the firm’s client services team, added: “The bedding-in period and new working patterns has taken a while to get used to but as a team we are definitely better rested and more motivated. That means we really look forward to coming to work and meeting the people we’re trying to help, which can only be a good thing for the service we provide.”
The benefits of a reduced working week were recently put to the test at Perpetual Guardian, a financial services company based in New Zealand. It switched its 240 staff from a five-day to a four-day week last November, which, according to researchers, led to a 20% increase in their productivity.
A simple tweet asking, ‘how do lawyers not cry when arguing[?]’ has gone mega-viral.
Since putting the all-important question to Twitter last week, popular stand-up-Tweeter, known as ‘Jimmy’, has been flooded with responses — with the post (see below) receiving an impressive 132,000 retweets and 405,000 likes. Of the 1,100 tweeters that commented their thoughts below, answers on offer vary from common sense to straight-up comical.
Of course, qualified practitioners are not the only ones to shed a tear. Future Linklaters trainee and legally-minded vlogging queen, Eve Cornwell, lets us all know that even lawyers-to-be need a tissue once in a while:
The London office of US law firm Sidley Austin has upped trainee pay by as much as 7%, Legal Cheek can reveal.
The Chicago headquartered outfit confirmed first year trainees will now receive a salary of £50,000, up 6% from £47,000, while those in year two will earn £55,000, up 7% from £51,500. The rises are effective from 1 June.
Sidley, which offers around 15 training contracts each year, scored As for quality of work and perks in our latest Trainee and Junior Lawyer Survey, and Bs for training, peer support and partner approachability.
Matters of money aside, the 20-office outfit is perhaps best known for bringing Brack and Michelle Obama together; the former US President met his then-future wife at Sidley’s Chicago office where Barack was a vac schemer and Michelle a junior associate and his supervisor.
Confirmation of the rises come just weeks after Freshfields upped NQ salaries to £100,000, a rise of £15,000 or 18%, in what has been described by some as an attempt to bridge the pay gap between the magic circle and top paying US outfit’s in the City. Announcing its own pay boost last week, US law firm Shearman & Sterling confirmed it had upped junior lawyer pay by 14% to £120,000.
Prime Minister hopeful Boris Johnson is to be summoned to court to face allegations he lied in the run-up to the Brexit referendum by saying the UK gave the EU £350 million a week.
Sitting at Westminister Magistrates Court, district judge Margot Coleman today ruled that the Conservative leadership candidate can be summoned to face accusations of misconduct in public office. The decision comes after campaigner Marcus Ball launched a private prosecution against Johnson, having successfully crowdfunded over £230,000 to help cover legal costs.
In a written decision (in full below), judge Coleman said:
“The allegations which have been made are unproven accusations and I do not make any findings of fact. Having considered all the relevant factors I am satisfied that this is a proper case to issue the summons as requested for the three offences as drafted. The charges are indictable only.”
Judge Coleman went on to explain that Johnson will be required to attend Westminster Magistrates Court for a preliminary hearing. “The case will then be sent to the Crown Court for trial”, she added. A court date has not yet been announced.
Reacting to the news, barrister Andrew Keogh (tweeting as CrimeLine) explained that there was still a “VERY long way to go”, with a judicial review of the decision to issue a summons the likely next step for Johnson. “Given summer holidays etc, this single stage unlikely to be resolved much before end of this year at the earliest”, Keogh explained.
IF judicial review fails, then case proceeds in crown court (altho' there could be overlap unless a stay imposed) – inevitable application to dismiss. So, this will keep lawyers busy for many many months…
Ball is represented by Bankside Commercial Solicitors and barristers Lewis Power QC, Colin Witcher and Anthony Eskander, while Johnson has reportedly called on the services of QEB Hollis Whiteman’s Adrian Darbishire QC.
A lawyer who smashed a chair over a senior civil judge’s head following what has been described as a “minor” disagreement has been jailed for over 18 years.
Imran Manj is said to have attacked judge Khalid Mehmood during a hearing on April 25 in the city of Jaranwala, Pakistan, local news station ARY News reports. The shocking attack left the judge in hospital suffering from a wound to the head.
According to Pakistan Today, Manj fled the scene but was later arrested by local police after judges threatened to go on strike and a case was filed against him in an anti-terrorism court.
LPCer gets genuine in new week-in-the-life vlog series
Eve Cornwell
Social media superstar and future magic circle trainee Eve Cornwell is to document the pressure of law exam season in a new four-part video series.
In the new vlogs, titled ‘Exam Season’, the Linklaters lawyer-to-be shares her weekly day-to-day balancing exam revision with her workshop and tutorials prep — a relatable law student struggle no doubt.
The first video offering, posted earlier this week to YouTube, comes as aspiring lawyers across the country gear-up for their law exams. For the non-legally minded viewers in her 170,000 strong subscriber base, the video (see below) offers the chance to witness a busy law student in action.
The vlog, viewed 117,000 times, begins with the University of Bristol law grad breaking down her work for the week: in addition to the prep needed for regular workshops, Cornwell reveals she has a a series of presentations and oral assessments lined up that she must practice for.
Alongside a collection of snazzy time-lapses of independent-study and group work, the video offers viewers access to the University of Law’s Moorgate campus, where Cornwell studies the accelerated Legal Practice Course (LPC).
On Monday, for example, Cornwell shares a sneak peek of her real estate workshop, in which she’s seen grappling with land law lingo. On the Thursday, Cornwell, suited and booted in corporate garb, is seen putting together her court bundles and submissions in preparation for an advocacy assessment, which viewers can see later on in the video thanks to a fly-on-the wall recording of her exam.
Cornwell also discusses how she’s gearing up for her training contract at the Linklaters, which she is due to start later this year. To help her make the “big decisions” about which seats to take during her two-year contract, the future magic circle lawyer attends a networking workshop at the firm’s London HQ to hear first hand what life is like in different departments.
Still, the LPCer doesn’t attempt to sugarcoat her law-related struggles. Speaking directly to the camera, the vlogging celeb gets real about fitting everything in:
“I’m finding it really hard to find any time to do any revision. I’ve spent all of this morning prepping for my workshops which are ongoing until my exams; spending quite a few hours at the firm and doing things like that; and I think sometimes it can be hard to fit actual revision in unless you’re burning really, really late hours.”
Cornwell also confesses that burning the candle at both ends has come at the expense of self-care. “I literally roll — imagine me rolling — into bed because it’s usually 1am and I can’t stay awake anymore when, really, before I go to bed I should wind-down,” she says. Indeed, viewers see the busy schedule take a toll on Cornwell, who falls sick mid-week — forcing her to cancel a class and begin a course of antibiotics.
In order to commence proceedings, an “information” must first be laid in the magistrates court. There is no time limit on laying an information for an indictable only offence, such as that which Johnson faces.
The procedure for the laying of an information is governed by Part 7 of the criminal procedure rules (CPR). Where a prosecutor wants the court to issue a summons, the prosecutor must serve an information in writing on the court officer or present an oral information with a written record of the allegation it contains. It is ordinarily more appropriate to provide a written information rather than attending and providing it orally. There is no particular form that is required to be used, all that matters is that the document sent to the magistrate’s court contains the essential elements of an information. (R v. Kennet Justices ex p Humphrey and Wyatt [1993] Crim.LR 787)
It is extremely unusual for a magistrates court to hold a hearing to determine whether or not a summons should be issued. However, district judge Coleman decided that in the case of Johnson this would be appropriate, given the significant public interest in the case.
The decision to issue a summons is guided by the general principle that the summons should be granted unless there is a compelling reason not to do so. This residual discretion will be exercised if the prosecution appears frivolous or vexatious, or if there is some other compelling reason, e.g. undue delay. The minimum matters that must be proven are:
a. The allegation is an offence known to the law and the essential ingredients of the offence are prima-facie present;
b. The alleged offence is not out of time;
c. The court has jurisdiction;
d. The prosecutor has authority to commence the prosecution (this was considered in the case of R v West London Justices, ex parte Klahn [1979] 2 All ER 221).
The prosecution is being brought by Marcus Ball, the director of Brexit Justice Ltd. This was a company set up in December 2016, seemingly with the sole purpose of prosecuting Johnson for these offences. As a result of a crowdfunding campaign, he has raised approximately £200,000 to bring proceedings. Interestingly, on 19th April 2019 Mr Ball filed at Companies House that he was no longer a person with significant control of the business. It is perfectly appropriate for proceedings to be brought by either an individual or a company, the power being given by section 6 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985.
The application for a summons
It should be noted at the outset, that the test for granting a summons as set out above is relatively low. It would take a brave district judge to refuse to grant a summons on any of the grounds that are available.
There were substantial arguments advanced by both silks who have been instructed in the case. The prosecution essentially allege that whilst acting as London Mayor and as an MP, Johnson deliberately lied to the general public about the sums sent to the EU and that instead £350 million could be sent to the NHS. It is hard to forget the message being branded across the ‘Boris Bus’ as it became known.
Johnson, through his representatives, argued that the application was pursued for purely political purposes. There is clearly value in this argument given the name of the company that Mr Ball acts through and the apparent motive. However, the defence further sought to argue that there was no evidential basis — given the offence can be committed on a reckless basis, this is not necessarily true.
The court had to consider the various ingredients of the offence, in reality this simply was a consideration of whether or not Johnson had deliberately/recklessly made false or misleading representations to the public. The reality of the position is that it simply needed to be shown that there was prima facie evidence of the commission of an offence, not necessarily a difficult task. The prosecution can simply rely on Johnson’s repeated comments and the apparent inconsistency between sending the EU £10 billion a year and sending them £350 million a week (the equivalent of £20 billion a year).
One issue that has arisen and will no doubt be argued further, is whether or not Johnson was actually acting in public office when he made these comments. There arguably ought to be a distinction between those made acting in office and those made acting as a campaigner — there will likely be further argument in due course regarding the distinction.
The district judge also needed to consider whether or not the prosecution was vexatious. This received relatively limited discussion and it appears there may be more to the materials disclosed to the court than that in the public domain. In a case of such political nature, one would normally expect further discussion.
The decision
District judge Coleman effectively rejected the submissions advanced by Johnson and without making any factual findings issued the summons. In reality, this is not unexpected — the bar is extremely low at this stage; that will change.
What happens next?
As I understand, there is already a judicial review of the district judge’s decision to issue a summons. I do not anticipate that this will be successful, there is a prima facie case to answer and the ruling suggests that there is more to the case than simply a political motivation.
The High Court, who will hear the application by way of case stated, will decide whether the decision was made unlawfully — it would appear not at face value. Alternatively, they will consider whether or not the decision is Wednesbury Unreasonable, a well-known legal test which means they will decide whether the decision is so unreasonable that no reasonable district judge could have reached it.
There does not appear to be anything unlawful about this decision, however, there will be extensive argument about each element of the offence. One particular area of consideration will be whether or not this is actually in the scope of public office, it is akin to the Carbolic Smoke Company ‘mere puff’. This will take time to consider and there may well be an application for an interim ruling not to issue the summons in the intervening period.
Assuming the judicial review is unsuccessful, there will be a summons issued and Johnson will be required to attend at Westminster Magistrates Court in the near future. It is not possible to say which date this will take place on. This hearing will be extremely short, Johnson will indicate a not guilty plea and the case will be sent to the crown court, probably at Southwark, for a plea trial and preparation hearing within 28 days of that date.
What will be argued?
The defence will no doubt pursue various arguments. The first of these will be an application to dismiss which will submit that no jury, properly directed, could convict Johnson of the offences that he is charged with. This will take the evidence put forward by the prosecution at its highest. Once again, there will be an argument that Johnson was not acting in the scope of public office, in addition to further arguments likely about each individual ingredient of the offence.
Following this, I would expect there to be various applications for disclosure. Private prosecutions come under substantial scrutiny for their attempts to properly investigate cases and disclose the material that is held. Ball’s legal representatives will need to be extremely careful to schedule the material that they rely on and, arguably more importantly, that material which they do not rely on. If the prosecution cannot show that they have complied with the various disclosure guidelines and obligations, they will not be permitted to prosecute Johnson and the proceedings will be brought to an end.
There will then be an application that the proceedings are such that Johnson cannot receive a fair trial or that they are an affront to the general principles of justice. For example, the political motivation for the proceedings will come under substantial scrutiny and whether or not the criminal courts are being used simply for the purpose of pursuing a political cause. There may well be further grounds of abuse pursued.
Will there be a trial?
If none of these arguments succeed, then there will likely be a trial. This will be a crown court trial so heard before a judge and jury. There will be evidence seemingly called by members of the public who allege that they were misled into voting leave as a result of comments made by Johnson.
Given all of the arguments that will be pursued, it’s unlikely that a trial will happen in 2019 and so by the time he has to arrive at Southwark Crown Court, Johnson may well be the Prime Minister. That, as far as I’ve been able to tell, would be an entirely new situation.
Rhys Rosser is a junior tenant at 2 Bedford Row practising in criminal and regulatory law.
The London office of US law firm Shearman & Sterling has posted a retention score of 81%.
The outfit confirmed today that 13 of its 16 autumn qualifiers had accepted associate roles. The new recruits will be spread across a number of the firm’s key practice areas, including antitrust; finance; financial institutions; advisory & financial regulatory; international arbitration; investment funds; litigation; mergers & acquisitions and project development & finance.
Twelve out of the 13 NQs will start lawyer life in London, with one associate taking up a position in the firm’s international arbitration team in Abu Dhabi.
“We are pleased to see talented and ambitious young lawyers accepting offers to start their careers with us,” commented partner and training principal, John Adams, who heads the trainee solicitor programme in Shearman & Sterling’s London office.
Matthew Readings, head of the London office, added:
“We are delighted that these talented lawyers will be building their careers here. As a firm we are committed to being an employer of choice and attracting and retaining the best talent. We look forward to continuing to work with our newly qualified colleagues as they progress in their exciting legal careers.”
News of the firm’s latest retention score comes just over a week after it confirmed pay boosts for its junior lawyers. As reported by Legal Cheek, NQs now enjoy a salary of £120,000, up from an already impressive £105,000 — a rise of 14%. Our Firms Most List shows trainees at the New York-headquartered outfit currently receive £45,000 in year one, rising to £50,000 in year two.
The firm, which dishes out around 15 training contracts annually, was a strong performer in our latest Trainee and Junior Lawyer Survey, scoring an A* for quality of work, as well as As for training, peer support, partner approachability and perks. It went on to bag the gong for ‘Best Law Firm for Quality of Work 2019’ at our glitzy awards ceremony earlier this year.
I’m moving from a mid-tier outfit and want to hit the ground running
In the latest instalment in our Career Conundrums series, one newly qualified solicitor needs advice on how to best prepare for life at the London office of a “notoriously busy” US law firm.
“I completed my training contract in a mid-tier firm, but I have accepted an NQ offer in a notoriously busy US firm’s Dispute Resolution team. I’m looking forward to the challenge, but I’m expecting a huge culture change and increase in tempo. I have three months before I start. How can I best prepare myself so I can hit the ground running? For example, should I memorise the structure of the White Book/contract and tort basics/revise my LPC litigation notes / read all the cases on BAILII which the firm has recently been involved in / all of the above / anything else? Thanks for any advice you can offer.”
Scrapping of LPC, shift to apprenticeships and focus on tech prompt enthusiasm and anxiety in equal measure
The Legal Cheek Future of Legal Education and Training Conference
With just two years to go until the Solicitors Qualifying Exam (SQE) is introduced in place of the Legal Practice Course (LPC), amid similar changes at the bar aiming to make vocational legal education cheaper and more efficient, the profession is on the cusp of a new era for the training of its young.
Judging by the audience questions at last week’s Legal Cheek Future of Legal Education and Training Conference, the transition to these new regimes is provoking a fair bit of anxiety. Chief among them is the fear that the SQE will lead to the formation of a “two-tier profession”. In the elite tier, the theory goes, you’d have City law firm trainees who have been put through expensive, extended SQE-LLM courses; then in second class there’d be the students who do the exam via a combination of cheaper preparatory courses and on-the-job learning.
Will this vision come to pass? SQE architect Julie Brannan of the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) is sceptical, arguing at the conference that the rigour of the centrally assessed SQE exam — which is expected to be harder to pass than the LPC — will actually improve standards. At the same time, Brannan believes that lower training costs associated with having part two of the SQE effectively taught on the job will boost access to the profession. Not that everyone will follow this approach.
For Patrick McCann, the global head of learning at magic circle firm Linklaters, the tricky thing with the SRA’s vision of the SQE process is that it does not include any real element of tailored, practice-specific legal learning (eg as is what is currently the LPC) and that the assumption is that SQE2 (the skills part) will be taken during the qualifying work experience (QWE), with skills being learnt on the job, presumably taught by more senior lawyers. The challenge here is that lawyers aren’t always great teachers, and even those who are tend to have very high hourly rates that would be better put towards fee-earning than teaching. As such he reckons it will be much more efficient to front-load parts one and two of the SQE before the training contract, and provide teaching by educational experts in an approach very similar to the current LPC.
Left to right: Alex Aldridge, Julie Brannan, Ken Oliphant, Morette Jackson and Patrick McCann
The challenge for the likes of The University of Law (ULaw), which trains Linklaters’ future trainees and whose head of business development Morette Jackson joined McCann and Brannan on the panel, will be to come up with a variety of SQE courses to meet different needs. On one hand they’ll need to suit City law firms’ requirements; on the other they must also cater to students taking new routes into the profession — such as ULaw’s legal apprenticeship and two year LLB — who may be more likely to join smaller firms where on the job training is blended with the SQE. Jackson said:
“The University of Law is designing a range of innovative programmes to prepare aspiring lawyers both for the SQE and for the realities of modern legal practice. Whether students are interested in specialist programmes for global law firms, pathways for those wanting to qualify into specialist areas of practice or flexible programmes to combine work and study at the same time, the university’s programmes will ensure a smooth transition into legal practice.”
But the introduction of the SQE isn’t just about reimagining vocational training structures, it’s also an opportunity to rethink the substantive content of preparation courses. For example, BPP University Law School is keenly focused on law firms’ growing interest in technology, and is working to incorporate legal tech training into its soon to be released extended SQE masters programmes, which it runs in partnership with a host of leading global law firms. BPP head of development (innovation technology) Adam Curphey said:
“The legal team of the future is one where lawyers work closely with wider specialised teams to provide the best and most innovative services to clients. At BPP, we are training future solicitors to develop a toolkit of skills that will allow them to understand the fundamentals of project management, process mapping, legal design, risk management, business finance and strategy, data and, of course, legal technology. Nobody knows what the future holds, and we believe we are equipping our students with a strong foundation to adapt to any advancement or innovation, whether that be technological, process-driven, or organisational.”
Already there is movement in this space at undergraduate level, with York University recently announcing a tie-up between its law and computer science departments, and Norton Rose Fulbright. Manchester University has been operating something similar in a pioneering partnership with Freshfields and DWF. Key figures in both ventures joined Curphey on stage at the conference, while later in the day delegates heard from keynote speaker Professor Richard Susskind, who expects the coming together of law and technology to transform the legal profession over the next decade.
For LexisNexis, one of the premeninent global legal tech companies, this theme is a constant. Its director of global solutions, Dani McCormick, told the conference:
“At LexisNexis we recognise two big themes that are going to become more and more prevalent moving forward in the delivery of legal services. These are, the fusion of non-legal professionals working with lawyers to deliver services as the product portfolio expands to include project management and legal tech consulting as well as legal advice. The second, but related theme is the disintegration of the value chain allowing outsourcing and automation where possible. To cater for this LexisNexis is working in collaboration with legal professionals to create a new generation of analytics and workflow tools that help support lawyers to become more efficient, improve quality of the work they produce and offer undiscovered insight.”
Legal tech offers a particularly good opportunity for academics specialising in clinical legal education to design new courses for digital natives drawn to the intersection between law, technology and practice — even where they have no specific science training. During the afternoon session of the conference, Richard Seabrook, the Europe managing director of Neota Logic and London South Bank University head of law Professor Andy Unger gave details about their partnership in this space. Seabrook said:
“Legal tech opens up new possibilities in clinical legal education by exposing students to the potential for digital technology to transform the delivery of legal services and at the same time delivering actual, measurable results in the clinics through such resources as free online legal advice apps.”
Meanwhile, Laura Pinkney, the head of the Legal Advice Centre at Nottingham Law School, which is one of the UK’s first ever teaching law firms, gave her perspective on the wider clinical legal education model. She said:
“Opportunities offered to students in a teaching law firm, such as ours, give them a huge advantage over their peers, with the evidence showing that they perform better in their degrees and have greater graduate prospects. Together with vital technical and practical skills, it helps to build their confidence and resilience and gives them a competitive edge in applications and interviews. The regulated environment teaches professionalism and accountability and enables our students to experience litigation and advocacy, which is rare in a university law centre setting. Importantly, the students gain a real sense of pride and achievement by providing access to justice to those in need.”
Another area where the current shake-up of legal education could yield improvements is around the until-recently taboo topic of mental health — long an Achilles heel of a profession that is notorious for its high stress levels. During the afternoon session of the Conference a panel of top academics and lawyers from Freshfields, Macfarlanes and Hardwicke argued for greater openness around wellbeing at the junior end of the profession. Hardwicke joint head of chambers PJ Kirby QC, who sits on his set’s pupillage committee, said:
“Being more open, understanding and supportive of those — and there are many — with mental health issues is essential if we are to ensure both the bar and the solicitors side of the profession are open to all and are enabling each of us to work to the best of our ability and develop to our full potential.”
Also representing the bar at the Conference was Cornerstone Barristers’ public law specialist Andrew Lane, who gave his take on the coming changes to barrister training — which like the SQE will see students given the option to do the course in two parts. Lane said:
“The dichotomy between needing to open up access to the bar to a more diverse input, not least in the socio-economic field, and improving the prospects for pupillage is one that has to be addressed. There is not just one answer to this but a reduction in course costs, more and better publicised “scholarship” awards from the Inns and others, and greater access to understanding the reality of life at the junior bar are three areas that would go some way to improve the route into pupillage for many would-be applicants.”
As the biggest changes to legal education draw closer, and regulators’ put the finishing touches to course requirements as law firms and chambers scramble to ready themselves in time, it is set to be a busy year. No doubt there will be lots to talk about next year at The Future of Legal Education and Training Conference 2020.
Queen Mary University of London (QMUL) has teamed up with international law firm Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner (BCLP) and human rights outfit Bindmans to offer aspiring lawyers the opportunity to gain a year’s worth of CV-boosting paid legal experience midway through their LLBs.
The four-year sandwich degree, Law in Practice LLB, was first launched in 2015 as part of tie-up with the London office of US player Reed Smith. As reported by Legal Cheek at the time, wannabe lawyers who are selected for the programme spend time in both the firm’s transactional and litigation departments, as well as its non-law business support teams. Successful candidates are also guaranteed a training contract interview.
Now, in an expansion to the sandwich programme, QMUL confirmed students will have the opportunity to undertake similar year-long placements at BCLP and Bindmans.
The deal with BCLP will give up to three wannabe lawyers the opportunity to spend an academic year gaining practical experience in either the firm’s real estate or finance team, while the tie-up with Bindmans sees one student spend the year focusing on human rights. QMUL confirmed that participants will receive the London Living Wage which currently stands at £20,572.50.
Christina Perry, deputy dean for education in QMUL’s faculty of humanities and social sciences, said:
“We are delighted to partner with two outstanding law firms in BCLP and Bindmans for Queen Mary’s innovative LLB Law in Practice degree. The paid legal placement experiences that they offer to Queen Mary students will be of enormous value to our students. We are very pleased that our students will be able to gain significant experience in fields as varied as human rights, real estate and finance at these two excellent firms.”
News of the expansion comes just weeks after Reed Smith announced a tie-up with the University of Exeter to launch an LLB with an innovation-focused placement year. The new degree, which sees up to five students spend a year in the firm’s London office, aims to prepare wannabe lawyers for the increasing “growth in legal innovation and technology”
︎Absence of Light
Original image via 
