A firm of solicitors which came to prominence because of its owner's predilection for fast cars, big tax demands, grand expansion plans and a secretive grant from taxpayer's funds (see story) is back in the news, this time for "falsely and systematically" overcharging claims for costs in personal injury (PI) cases.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal has published its November 2016 order that MOHAMMED ZAHIR UDDIN, sole director of Your Right Solicitors Limited, be struck off. His failings are legion and, even, disturbing.
A note of personal sadness: long, long ago, this writer was considering his future. At the top of the list of highly professional firms that attracted him was Mallesons in Hong Kong. But a family discussion resulted in staying in London and taking a radically different approach. The hankering remained but the shine is wearing off as the now global association of practices is heavily in debt, shedding staff and trying to hive off offices and teams.
In the UK, there is an epidemic of advertising and other forms of marketing by companies who then pass leads to firms ( which, these days, are often companies not firms) of solicitors. Their advertising is annoying and sometimes misleading; but there are practices that are downright unethical and borderline (or perhaps over the border) illegal. Can the practice be prevented? Perhaps it's time to wind back the clock on fee sharing.
A McKenzie Friend cannot be the representative of record that is he cannot provide a "firm" or an address for service. He cannot be the agent of a litigant in person and so he cannot e.g. issue proceedings on his behalf. He does not have a right of audience, that means he cannot address the court directly, unless, in exceptional cases, the court might grant, on a one-off basis, a right to address the court and to examine witnesses. However, more McKenzie Friends are making applications for rights of audience and are...
It's not so long ago that advocates in any court had to be legally qualified. There was a fall-back position for those who were unable to afford their own solicitor or barrister and were, for one reason or another, going to find it difficult to present their own case. The reasons were, for example, that they were not sufficiently literate, or that they were disadvantaged by poor, or no, English or that they were of an exceptionally nervous disposition. But things have gone badly wrong.
It used to be that the solicitors branch of the legal profession in England and Wales was compelled to purchase its professional indemnity insurance (PII) from a single, approved, insurer and the cost was very high. Rightly, the profession voted to widen the scheme to permit approved PII to be purchased from third party insurers on a competitive level. But things have not gone according to plan and the latest crisis threatens the future of several firms.