The Law Gazette - Freelance opportunities - 19 November 2018

After 90 days of deliberation, the Legal Services Board has approved the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s plans for solicitors to offer legal services through unregulated businesses and to allow self-employed solicitors to work on a freelance basis.

The plans have been opposed by many, but I have silently supported the proposals from the beginning and I am glad they have now been approved. Not only will opportunities be created for solicitors to work in a truly flexible way, it is also likely that the majority of unreserved legal services will now be provided with the necessary regulatory protection.

The SRA’s foresight in creating this new breed of solicitors cannot be criticised. The regulator saw the level of competition that solicitors’ firms were facing and knew that without changing the regulatory framework, the solicitor brand could not survive.

We solicitors should be supporting the plans and helping the SRA implement the new regulations.

The plans have another positive outcome that seems to have been missed by the regulator. That is the potential increase in the level of diversity among solicitors. Women and minority ethnic solicitors who face obstacles to progression and promotion in predominantly white-male-run firms will be able to carve out their own space and be leaders in their field outside the constraints that exist in a firm structure.

The new working culture will not affect standards of legal service, compared to those provided by solicitors who work at a firm, and will additionally bring new approaches to delivery.

With the courts reforms designed, to an extent, to create a court system without lawyers, this is the right time for the SRA to highlight the importance of being a legally qualified professional. Although the SRA may not see it this way, its push for ‘independent’ solicitors counters many of the arguments made by the Ministry of Justice to justify the £1bn courts modernisation. The ‘independent’ solicitor will be able to bring a new approach to costs for individuals and small businesses, and by working outside the traditional norms will also be more accessible.

The solicitors’ profession was built on the backs of individuals. The new regulatory reforms are no more than echoes of the past and will ensure that there is a solicitors’ profession for future generations.

Sophie Khan
Sophie Khan & Co, Leicester

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/feedback/freelance-opportunities/5068352.article

Independent Voice - I represented victims of the Lakanal House fire, this is why we need an inquest into what happened at Grenfell Tower - 26 June 2017

I represented victims of the Lakanal House fire, this is why we need an inquest into what happened at Grenfell Tower

My client, whose daughter and grandchildren died on 11th floor of the tower block in Camberwell, was consoled that lessons would be learnt by this tragic incident – sadly they were ignored by the Government 

The fire at Grenfell Tower has brought back memories of the tower block fire at Lakanal House in Camberwell, London in 2009 in which three adults and three children died – one was a 20 day old baby.

At the time the Lakanal House Fire was the UK’s worst ever tower block fire and a ‘Super-Inquest’ was convened to investigate the deaths. The ‘Super-Inquest’ gave the bereaved families certainty that no stone would be left unturned, and it wasn’t. The police allocated resources to investigate whether criminal offences had been committed, and although the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) did not bring charges and prosecutions against the local authority or the fire brigade, the evidence gathered during the police investigation was invaluable to the inquest proceedings.

At the inquest, the jury found serious failings by Southwark Council and the London Fire Brigade and concluded that the deaths were avoidable, had safety checks taken place in the years before the fire and the ‘stay-put’ advice given by the fire brigade changed on the day.

The bereaved families waited a long time to hear the jury’s verdicts and my client, whose daughter and grandchildren died on 11th floor of the tower block was to some extent consoled that lessons would be learnt by this tragic incident. The Coroner recommended a number of actions that needed to be taken by the Government to safeguard the lives of residents living in tower blocks.

Sadly, the Government did not act upon the recommendations, apart from commencing a ‘programme of simplification’ of the Approved Document B, in relation to Building Regulations. This meant that 4,000 tower blocks across the country were not retro fitted with sprinkler systems and a lax regulatory framework around fire safety assessments remained in place.

It downplayed the national importance of the recommendations made by the Coroner and adopted a laissez-faire attitude towards the jury’s verdicts. This sent a clear message to the local councils that the safety of residents in tower bocks was not a Government priority and the recommendations could be ignored.

The clarity about the advice given to residents of tower blocks in case of a fire within the building was not reviewed and the recommendation that the Department of Communities and Local Government publish a consolidated national guidance in relation to the 'stay-put' policy and its interaction with the 'get out and stay out' policy never took place.

The Government’s failure to safeguard the lives of those who reside in tower blocks came at a heavy toll to those who lived at Grenfell Tower. The unimaginable and unspeakable horror that many have suffered and witnessed cannot be left to the Government to investigate. The bereaved families have a right to a fair and transparent investigation into the deaths of their loved ones, whose lives were lost at the hands of the Government.

The bereaved families have a right to an inquest into the deaths of their loved ones, as took place after the Lakanal House Fire. A High Court Judge or a more senior judge can be appointed as the Coroner and as in the case of the Lakanal House Fire a 'Super-Inquest' convened. The inquest would be held with all the bereaved families together and they would have a right to see all the evidence gathered as part of the criminal investigation.

If the Government wants to learn immediate lessons, then the jury’s narrative verdicts from the ‘Super-Inquest’ into the Lakanal House Fire and the Coroner’s Rule 43 Report is the starting point

It is hoped that on reflection the Government will realise that for justice to prevail, there must be an inquest not an inquiry into the deaths of those who died in the Grenfell Tower fire.

Sophie Khan, a Solicitor-Advocate is Solicitor Director at Sophie Khan & Co a niche firm specialising in actions against the police and public authorities, and represents bereaved families at inquests. She is also director of the Police Action Centre. Follow her on Twitter: @khan_sophie

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/grenfell-tower-lakanal-house-why-we-need-an-inquest-a7808536.html