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

Interview on BBC Newsnight on 15 June 2017 -Grenfell Tower public inquiry 'not right': Solicitor Sophie Khan - BBC Newsnight

BBC Newsnight Interview - 15 June 2017 

Grenfell Tower public inquiry 'not right': Solicitor Sophie Khan - BBC Newsnight

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcyvOL-LrHM&feature=youtu.be

Comment Piece - The Law Society's Ethnic Minorities Lawyers Division - CODIE

Should all firms have a equality and diversity (E&D) compliance officer?

23 November 2016 02:18 pm

Sophie Khan thinks they should

Since Liz Truss MP was appointed lord chancellor, being the first female to be appointed to the role and only the second non-lawyer, the lack of diversity in the judiciary and at the senior levels of law firms has come to the forefront. It is the first time that ‘diversity’ of the legal profession has reached such importance that it can no longer be ignored by the senior managers of law firms. Action to address the disparity in the employment and progression of ethnic minority lawyers is now a must, no longer a maybe.

For those of us who have been campaigning for a fairer, more equal and more diverse legal profession this commitment by the lord chancellor bolsters our cause and we should do all we can to assist her to make it a reality. But what of the roles of our professional body and our regulator in this ‘drive for diversity’? What part must they play in bringing about a change in the cultural fabric of law firms?

During my term as a solicitor member of the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Committee I saw the void that existed in the SRA’s policy on diversity and the total lack of any comprehensive approach to challenging the status quo that existed at law firms.

To address this issue, I proposed that the SRA develop a policy to appoint a compliance officer for diversity, inclusion and equality (CODIE) to report on diversity, inclusion and equality issues experienced by their firm. This would be similar to the way the compliance officers for legal practice (COLP) and compliance officers for finance and administration (COFA) reporting on issues on legal practice and financial administration.

The CODIE would be responsible for the firm’s diversity, inclusion and equality policy and would be tasked with developing ‘good practice’ and initiatives in creating a fairer, more equal and more diverse workforce.

Although, the SRA did not take the proposal forward at the time, it seems that the SRA must now review its policy in light of the lord chancellor’s intervention and use its regulatory powers to ‘drive’ law firms to a position where ethnic minority lawyers become part of the fabric and future of their firm. In having a CODIE, who will be responsible for the administration of diversity, inclusion and equality, with the same reporting mechanisms as the COLP and COFA, the creation of a fairer, more equal and more diverse legal profession will become a reality for the first time.

A ‘diverse judiciary’ will inevitably take time but ultimately this cannot be achieved if our regulator does not recognise that a CODIE is the only viable route to make this happen.

http://communities.lawsociety.org.uk/ethnic-minority-lawyers/features-and-interviews/emld-interviews/should-all-firms-have-a-equality-and-diversity-ed-compliance-officer/5059135.article

Guardian - Comment is Free Swapping guns for Tasers won't stop cops who kill black people. What can? - 2 December 2014

Curbing excessive use of force is a good thing. Why do many people think the fix is to provide merely a different weapon of choice? Photograph: Alexey Furman/EPA

Would Michael Brown still be alive if cops were trained to reach for their stun gun, rather than their gun-guns?

Maybe, in the case of Michael Brown.

But, as evidenced by the recent deaths of Israel Hernandez in Miami Beach, Florida, and Dominique Franklin Jr in Sauk Village, Illinois, stun guns are no guarantee that the overreaction of a law enforcement officer won’t result in the death of an innocent civilian.

On Friday, a report on the United States by the UN Committee against Torture offered clear evidence that Tasers are as lethal as firearms. In the cases of Hernandez and Franklin, both men were unarmed and tasered in circumstances where there was no real or immediate threat to the life of – or risk of serious injury to – the officer. The committee’s evaluation of the use by US law enforcement officials of stun guns – commonly referred to by the brand name Taser – calls on the authorities to “revise the regulations governing the use of such weapons with a view to establishing a high threshold for their use ... and subject to the principles of necessity and proportionality.”

In other words, the reputed non-lethality of stun guns is absolutely no reason for them to be drawn under vastly different circumstances than an officer would draw his gun.

In its annual report, Amnesty International found that, between 2001 and 2013, there were 540 deaths from police using stun guns. The weapons were also linked as a contributing factor in more than 60 other deaths, including the death of 17-year-old Darryl Turner, who died in March 2008 after being tasered in the chest for more than 40 seconds at the North Charlotte grocery store where he worked as a cashier. He suffered cardiac arrest and died at the scene. The subsequent litigation brought by Turner’s parents concluded that Taser International, which manufactures the weapon, failed to warn law enforcement officials of the risk of firing Tasers near an individual’s heart. The conclusions of the case were supported by May 2012 research from the American Heart Association. The report provided the first scientific evidence that Tasers (and other stun guns) can cause cardiac arrest and death.

It is a myth that stun guns are less lethal weapons capable of “saving lives” – and they do nothing to combat US law enforcement’s use of excessive force or racially discriminatory policing. In August, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination urged police departments in the United States to stop using excessive force, and also found that black Americans were disproportionately the victims of police brutality.

In response to public concerns, officials in the United Kingdom are currently taking a critical look at British officers’ use of force.

Theresa May, the UK home secretary, ordered a national review in October after statistics suggested that a disproportionate percentage of victims of police Tasering “are from black or minority backgrounds”. The review is part of a wider transparency programme for the British police, which aims to curb the excessive use of force through increased scrutiny and training.

In the UK, there have been a number of deaths linked to stun-gun use, but none have been held to be caused by the weapon. May has asked Home Office officials and the national policing lead on Tasers to conduct an in-depth review of the publication of Taser data and the use of force by police officers, and those new measures are likely to see a reduction in the use of stun guns in the coming years. They ultimately help prevent any Taser-related deaths.

Rather than putting more weapons in more officers’ hands, the US ought to be considering a similar review. Curbing the excessive use of force is a good thing; it’s unclear why so many people think the way to do that is to provide alternate weapons for cops instead.

We need to change the way that black Americans are policed (and overpoliced), but we can’t until federal, state and local officials – indeed, officials across the world – acknowledge and take responsibility for the fact that police brutality routinely causes preventable deaths. It might be a shock to the system, but at least it won’t be a deadly one.

 http://gu.com/p/43nhz

Opinion in The Lawyer - 25 July 2014

CV-blind policies are just one step in right direction

25 July 2014

Lawyers from diverse backgrounds are an untapped resource but more needs to be done to achieve equal footing.

Last week Lawyer 2B reported that Macfarlanes had joined Clifford Chance and Mayer Brown in introducing a CV-blind policy to recruit trainee solicitors (16 July 2014). This is welcome news and a step that needs to be embraced by all law firms, not just City firms.

The ‘business case’ for diversity was recently made out by Baroness Hale in her speech to the Law Society’s Women Lawyer’s Division and is further evidence that a diverse workforce should be seen as an asset to a firm.

Young ethnic minorities face inequality due to the unconscious bias that exists towards them during the recruitment stage. This hinders their ability to progress to the next stage of their careers as they may not ‘fit the image’ of the partners at the firm. Unlike first-time buyers, young ethnic minorities cannot join a ‘scheme’ to help them get onto the legal ladder. The CV-blind policy is an attempt to circumvent the bias and allow applicants an equal playing field to pitch themselves at the interview stage without relying on their background.

A similar initiative has been introduced for judicial appointments at the final selection process to address the lack of ethnic minority representation at the senior end of the judiciary.

The Equal Merits Provision will be used where two or more candidates are judged to be of equal merit and there is a clear under-representation on the basis of race or gender. The policy is said not to discriminate against non-ethnic minorities candidates. However, there is a risk that good candidates will not be appointed because of their race or gender or both and that cannot be in the interest of society.

I am unconvinced as to whether the Equal Merits Provision is the correct approach to address under-representation at the judiciary and I would not want to see this policy rolled out across the rest of the legal profession.

To challenge under-representation there needs to be frameworks to support diversity. The future leaders in law must be representative of society but selected on merit alone. The policy, practices and targets of law firms must ensure a consistent approach is adopted to achieve equal opportunities.

Alongside compliance and regulatory matters, there should be a mandatory duty to maintain a diverse law force.

Lessons should be learnt from the difficulties faced by other organisations providing a frontline service to the public. The Macpherson Report in 1999 found that the Metropolitan Police was institutionally racist. No steps were taken to change the status quo of the police service and as a result this led to a breakdown in trust and respect for the police. The Metropolitan Police is now trying to repair the damage caused and have launched a new recruitment policy to ‘reflect diversity’.

From this August the Metropolitan Police will only recruit new constables who have lived in Greater London for three of the last six years. The initiative which was championed by Stop and Search Legal Project, an educational project run by volunteer lawyers, shows that lawyers are leaders in equality and provide the solutions when it comes to confronting inequality.

The pale, male partners will remain the fabric of many firms but in others new faces will come to dominate the landscape. We must recognise the unique contributions that ethnic minorities can bring to our firms and take advantage of their skill and knowledge which cannot be taught. Lawyers from different cultural and religious backgrounds are an untapped resource. They can relate to a wider audience and contribute to the long-term marketability of the firm.  

The movement for equal rights has begun but we have a few more steps to go before there is an equal footing for all who wish to enter the legal profession.

Sophie Khan, solicitor director, Sophie Khan & Co 

http://www.thelawyer.com/analysis/opinion/cv-blind-policies-are-just-one-step-in-right-direction/3023650.article

The rise of the specialist: part two in Law Gazette 22 July 2014

The rise of the specialist: part two

22 July 2014By Sophie Khan

• 
  

A range of new laws - such as flexible-working provisions and legal aid reforms - will boost the emergence of specialist practitioners.

The advent of a new right to request flexible working is more good news for specialist practitioners. The new provisions will provide specialists with a unique opportunity to trade on their expertise to secure flexible-working hours and explore new working arrangements such as consultancy and contract work.

It will no longer be in the power of law firms to dictate the number of hours their employees work in the office. This change will break down the established thinking that time is money, to expertise is money.

The legal experts will be the ones who call the shots and create a new working environment which recognises the value of skill and expertise to a case, changing the face of how traditional legal services are provided to the public.

In the long term this new approach will bring down costs of legal services as billable hours will be replaced by fixed pricing. Instead of billing clients for the time spent on a case, the client is billed for instructing an expert practitioner to run their case. Fixed pricing has advantages for both clients and law firms. For clients they know the up-front cost of the legal service they require and for law firms the recoverable cost on a specific matter.

The financial sustainability of law firms is a growing concern across the profession. Legal aid will soon become a relic of the past and if your firm is reliant on a legal aid franchise you need to start to look at alternative funding models such as damages-based agreements (DBAs) and ‘unbundled’ legal services.

There has been much debate about the workability of DBAs but in certain cases it is the only viable option and is not too different from the current arrangements that many firms are adopting under a conditional fee agreement. These firms still recover a success fee from their clients if the claim is successful. The success fee is deducted from their client’s damages.

It may be unpalatable to legal aid practitioners to take money from their clients but this is the future of legal funding if the case does not enjoy the protection of qualified one-way cost shifting (QOCS). The Civil Justice Council Committee has recommended the extension of QOCS to specialist areas of civil law. However, it will take several months for the recommendations to be implemented. In the meantime, firms need to secure finance to address any shortfall in income.

The Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill, introduced in the Queen’s Speech seeks to ‘make the UK the most attractive place to start, finance and grow a business’ and opens the door to alternative funding providers. As with the new flexible-working legislation the bill will end a monopoly and allow small firms access to finance.

This in turn should address the growing tide of litigants in person. If small firms have the resources to take on more cases on an alternative funding model then the number of unrepresented litigants will start to fall. Another way is to make the court system less adversarial in civil litigation.

This is the approach that has been suggested by the appeal court judges who handed down their judgment earlier this month on the interpretation of the Mitchell guidance. If this suggestion is followed it is likely to lead to more cases being resolved at an earlier stage of proceedings and save costs for the judicial system.  

This should be music to the ears of Chris Grayling but it seems his attention has turned elsewhere. His recent campaign involves championing the cause of ‘everyday heroes’. The Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill (SARAH) aims to protect such heroes who act in the interests of society, responsibly or heroically. 

Many practitioners believe that SARAH is unworkable and will add unnecessary complications to legal proceedings and as a result increase overall costs. The resources being laden to create a new law would be better spent upholding the right to access the law.  

It is in the interest of society, responsible and heroic to protect this right. Specialist practitioners need to embrace their new rights and protect access to the law.

Sophie Khan is solicitor director at Sophie Khan & Co

• Read the first part of Sophie’s article
• http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/publicly-funded-bar-facing-post-laspo-exodus/practice/practice-management/the-rise-of-the-specialist-part-two/5042331.article