Department for Constitutional AffairsAppointments

| Legal policy | Family matters | Mental capacity | Civil matters | Criminal matters | Legal aid | CFAs and Legal Costs | Advisory bodies | International relations | Coroners and burials

|© Crown Copyright & Disclaimer

Home > Legal policy > Advisory bodies > The Legal Services Consultative Panel

Minutes of the Forty-Seventh Meeting of the Legal
Services Consultative Panel in Room 204 MWB Business Centre,
10 Greycoat Place,
on 26th January

Present
Lord Justice Potter (Chairman)
Mr Jonathan Acton Davis QC
Professor Hugh Brayne
Mr Jonathan Goldsmith
Mr John Hannam
Ms Karen Mackay
Mr David McIntosh
Mr Richard Moorhead
Mr John Randall
Mr John Randall QC
Mr Alan Street
Ms Peta Sweet
Dr Matthew Weait
Mr John Young

Mr David Lammy MP - Item V

Ms Siobhan Mahoney } Department for Constitutional Affairs (DCA)
Mr Jason Coombs      }

Item I: Apologies

  1. Apologies were received from the following members:

    • Professor John Bell QC
    • Lady Elizabeth Finsberg
    • Mr Simon Sapper

Item II: Introduction of new members

The Chairman asked the new Panel members to introduce themselves.

Item III: Minutes of the last meeting.

  1. The Chairman said there were some amendments to the minutes of the last meeting which were to be dealt with separately, as Mr Lammy had arrived.

Item IV: Matters arising

Item V: Mr David Lammy MP - Feedback from the Standing Conference

  1. The Chairman welcomed Mr Lammy to the meeting. Mr Lammy thanked members on behalf of himself and the Secretary of State, for their help and valued advice and welcomed the new Panel members.

  2. The Chairman informed Mr Lammy that David Clementi, who had attended the November meeting in order to provide more detail on the scope of the review of the regulation of legal services, had told the Panel that it was his intention to issue a consultation document at the end of February and that he would welcome the Panel's views. The Chairman explained to Mr Lammy that it was not usual for the Panel to comment on consultation papers, nor was there likely to be time available for a measured Panel response. He asked Mr Lammy for his advice. Mr Lammy said that the Panel would not be asked to provide a group response, but that members should feel free to comment as individuals.

Action: The Chairman will write to Mr Clementi to explain the position.

  1. The Chairman invited Professor Hugh Brayne to provide feedback on the Standing Conference on Legal Education, which he recently attended. Professor Brayne then presented a short oral report on the last Standing Conference, which had taken place on 17 November 2003.

  2. Mr Lammy thanked Professor Brayne for his helpful summary. Mr Lammy was concerned that trainee solicitors were more attracted to commercial practice and said that more needed to be done to encourage solicitors into public work and family law etc.

  3. The Chairman asked members to voice their views. Points discussed included the lack of interest in the Conference from the consumer section of legal services who had declined to send representatives. It was agreed that the Standing Conference was a very important forum and more representatives from the professional bodies and the academic world should be encouraged to attend.

  4. The Chairman invited Professor Brayne to give feedback to the Panel on the LiLi Conference, which he attended. Professor Brayne informed the Panel that the issues discussed were similar to those discussed at the Standing Conference and then gave a brief oral report on discussions at the LiLi Conference.

Item VI: ILEX application for increased advocacy rights (Referral No 3/2002).

  1. The Chairman informed members that ILEX had been provided with a copy of the Panel's advice for any representations they should like to make. ILEX had written to the Panel (letter 9 January) pointing out what they saw as the inaccuracies in the Panel's advice. The Chairman invited Mr Randall QC and Ms Sweet to give feedback on the letter from ILEX dated 9 January, and asked the Panel to consider how best to progress the matter.

  2. The points raised in the ILEX letter, were discussed at length by the Panel and it was agreed that the Chairman should reply inviting ILEX to submit the additional issues which they mention in their further letter of 22 January and for the working group to meet with ILEX as soon as possible.

Action: Mr Randall QC with the assistance of other members to provide a draft reply for the Chairman. The Chairman's letter dated 28 January 2004 is attached as Annex A.

  1. Mr Randall QC said that the minutes of the working group meeting back in May were not of a high standard and the standard of minute taking would have to be improved especially if another meeting with ILEX were to take place.
  2. Dr Weait made the point that it is not the Panel's job to pass judgement on an application but to evaluate the evidence and put advice to the Secretary of State who makes a decision based on its advice.
  3. Ms Mackay suggested that the letter to ILEX should refer robustly to the final point in ILEX's letter of 22 January concerning the new members who would now be considering ILEX correspondence without the earlier background.
  4. The Chairman asked new members, Mr Randall and Mr McIntosh, if they would join the working group, which they agreed to do.
  5. Mr Goldsmith asked whether, in light of the ILEX case, a future meeting of the Panel could discuss the rights of audience and the standards the Panel are expected to meet.

Item VII: The LiLi Conference.

  1. This item is covered under item V above.

Item VIII: Any other business

  1. The Chairman echoed the earlier concerns raised by Mr Randall QC about the secretariat support and the taking of minutes of meetings. This was especially important in light of the requirements under the Freedom of Information Act.
  2. The Chairman was pleased to inform members that Professor Bob Hepple, a previous member of the Panel, had received a Knighthood.
  3. The next meeting will be on Monday 23 February in Room 204, MWB Business Centre, 10 Greycoat Place.

(Note: due to difficulties in Secretariat, the February meeting was subsequently cancelled. The next meeting will be on Monday 29 March at the Crowne Plaza Hotel, Buckingham Palace Gate.)

Annex A - ILEX Application for Extended Advocacy Rights

28 January 2004

Mrs D Burleigh
Secretary General
Institute of Legal Executives
Kempston Manor
Kempston
Bedford MK42 7AB

Dear Mrs Burleigh

Re: ILEX Application for Extended Advocacy Rights

First, may I formally acknowledge receipt of your letters dated 23 December 2003, 9 January 2004 and 22 January 2004.

So far as your letter of 23 December is concerned, I understand that you were quickly notified by telephone from the Department of Constitutional Affairs (DCA) that, at your request, publication of the Panel's Advice to the Secretary of State has been postponed pending the Panel's review of your comments in that letter, which comments have since been supplemented by your letter of 9 January 2004.

You should perhaps know that at the meeting of the Panel on 26 January at which preliminary consideration was given to the contents of your letters, a number of members expressed surprise that, the Panel having acceded to the request of ILEX for postponement, and prior to any further intimation from the Panel, your President publicly expressed the view contained in a 'comment' column in the Law Society Gazette of 22 January 2004 that ILEX "are currently awaiting a response from the Legal Services Consultative Panel and we are confident this application will be successful".

This is a matter of concern to the Panel, not least because it appears that, in relation to a number of matters of which complaint is made, the perception of ILEX of the functions of the Panel and the nature of the Panel's comments and advice differs from that of the Panel. At this stage, there are three general observations which I feel I should make clear.

First, it is not the Panel's function to provide a form of advisory service in respect of developing or refining applications referred to it by the Secretary of State. In this respect, there is a material difference between the role of the Panel and that of its predecessor body ACLEF.

Second, the decision on your application is of course one which will be made by the Secretary of State and not by the Panel. It is matter for him to what extent he follows or departs from the advice provided to him by the Panel which is not itself a decision-making body.

Third, it is clear that there is a considerable difference of understanding between ILEX and the Panel, and in particular those members of the Panel who specialise in questions of legal education and regulation, as to the concept, nature and purpose of a 'competence' in the context of training and qualification.

As to your most recent letter of 22 January, I note your statement that your Working Party, chaired by your President, had met earlier that day and identified "a number of additional issues regarding the Panel's Advice". If you wish the Panel to take them into account, I would be grateful swiftly to receive from ILEX a statement in writing of those additional issues together with such representations as ILEX wishes to make in respect of them.

As to the inquiry contained in the third paragraph of your letter about the membership of the Panel, it is of course the case that the Panel is constituted as such by statute and operates as a body with a membership which changes from time to time. As you are no doubt aware, the Secretary of State has appointed a number of new members to the Panel who attended its recent meeting and took part in the consideration of your letters, having studied the Panel's advice to date. It may help you to know that only one of the four members of the Panel's Working Group primarily concerned with the ILEX application, namely Charles Plant, has retired from the Panel. The Working Group has now been augmented by the addition of David McIntosh and John Randall (not to be confused with John Randall QC!). Alan Street, Peta Sweet and John Randall QC remain members of the Working Group.

In the final paragraph of each of your letters dated 23 December and 9 January, there is an implicit request for a further discussion to take place between the representatives of the Panel and ILEX prior to publication of the Panel's Advice after any revisions which the Panel may decide to make. In the light of your expectation that this would be so, and in order to proceed to finality as quickly as possible, the Panel has agreed to this request. To that end, I have asked the (newly expanded) Working Group to hold a further meeting with you following receipt of the written statement and representations requested above.

For the avoidance of any further misunderstanding, I should make clear that, while the Panel will take into account all the representations so far received from ILEX and any further representations received, it reserves its position as to whether, and if so to what extent, it will revise the present terms of its advice prior to completion and publication.

Please could you make contact with Louise Joyce at the DCA to let her know when your written statement of any additional issues and representations will be provided and, against that background, to make provisional arrangements for a subsequent meeting between ILEX and the Panel's Working Group as soon as it can conveniently be arranged.

Yours sincerely

 

Lord Justice Potter

 

© Crown Copyright