DOCSLIB.ORG

The English Supreme Court Declines to Extend the Application of Legal Advice Privilege Beyond Advice Given by Qualified Lawyers

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The English Supreme Court Declines to Extend the Application of Legal Advice Privilege Beyond Advice Given by Qualified Lawyers Commercial Litigation Client Service Group and International Arbitrational Team 24 January 2013 The English Supreme Court declines to extend the application of Legal Advice Privilege beyond advice given by qualified lawyers The UK Supreme Court handed down judgment yesterday in the long awaited case of Prudential plc and another v Special Commissioner of Income Tax and another. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether, at common law, legal advice privilege extends to, or should be extended to, communications between a client and an accountant seeking and giving legal advice on tax law (or other professionals whose profession ordinarily includes the giving of legal advice), and if so, how far it should be extended. In 2004, the Appellants (“Prudential”) had entered into a marketed tax avoidance scheme which had been devised by PricewaterhouseCoopers (“PwC”) and tailored by PwC for the Prudential group of companies. The scheme was notified to Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs ("HMRC"). The inspector of taxes served Prudential with notices under section 20 of the Taxes Management Act 1970 requiring them to disclose documents in connection with that scheme. A person cannot be forced by a section 20 notice to produce documents to which legal professional privilege (“LPP”) attaches (see House of Lords decision in R (Morgan Grenfell & Co Ltd) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax [2003] 1 AC 563). Prudential therefore refused to disclose any documents relating to legal advice they had obtained on tax matters, irrespective of whether such advice was obtained from lawyers or accountants, stating that the documents were subject to legal advice privilege (“LAP”). The inspector of taxes disagreed, and stated that advice from accountants was not covered by LAP. He sought, and received, authorisation from the Special Commissioner to require Prudential to disclose the documents. Prudential challenged that decision, issuing an application for judicial review which is the subject of the appeal. At first instance, the High Court rejected Prudential’s application on grounds that, although the documents would have been subject to LAP had the advice been sought from a qualified lawyer, no such privilege extended to advice (even if identical in its nature) by a professional who was not a qualified lawyer. That decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal for largely the same reasons. Prudential then appealed to the Supreme Court. Prudential noted in its appeal that the Human Rights Act 1998, applying the European Convention on Human Rights, protects LPP and requires any This Client Bulletin is published for the clients and friends of Bryan Cave LLP. Information contained herein is not to be considered as legal advice. This Client Bulletin may be construed as an advertisement or solicitation. Bryan Cave LLP. All Rights Reserved. Bryan Cave LLP America | Europe | Asia www.bryancave.com limitation on LPP to be justified. Prudential’s appeal has attracted significant interest, and there were a number of interveners to the appeal including the Law Society of England and Wales, the Bar Council of England and Wales and The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales. By a majority of 5:2 (with Lord Clarke and Lord Sumption dissenting), the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. The Court found that it is universally understood that LAP applies only to advice given by members of the legal profession – i.e. members of the Bar, the Law Society, and the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives (CILEX) (and, by extension, foreign lawyers). Although the Court acknowledged that the argument for extending the ambit of LAP to advice given by other professionals was a strong one (at least in principle), it held that LAP should not be extended, regardless of whether the advice in question is legal advice which that professional is qualified to give. It reasoned that to do so would extend LAP beyond its current, clear and well-understood, limits and there were good grounds for the Court not extending the principle. The Court noted that although LAP is a common law principle, Parliament has enacted some legislation relating to LAP. That legislation assumes that LAP is restricted to advice given by lawyers. Parliament has also considered and rejected proposals to enact legislation extending LAP to tax advisers. That suggests that it would be inappropriate for the Court to do so. An extension of the principle also raises questions of policy which should be left to Parliament. The Court was also concerned that extending LAP would likely result in a clear principle becoming unclear and uncertain. It stated that it is unclear which occupations would be members of a profession for this purpose nor which professions would be those that ordinarily give legal advice. Further, when professionals other than lawyers give legal advice it will often not represent the totality of the advice but will be blended with non-legal advice. (Curiously however, the Court did not acknowledge that Courts are already required to deal with this particular issue, for example, where communications by in-house lawyers contain both legal and non-legal advice.) In contrast, the dissenting minority considered that in a professional context whether LAP attaches to a communication depends on the character of the advice and the circumstances in which it is given, and not on the adviser’s status. Their view, citing the extension of LAP to advice given by foreign lawyers and in-house legal advisors, was that English law had always taken a functional approach to LAP. Recognising LAP as attaching to legal advice given by accountants would therefore not be extending the principle as “advice on tax law from a chartered accountant will attract [LAP] in circumstances where it would have done so had it been given by a barrister or a solicitor. They are performing the same function, to which the same legal incidents attach.”. Their (unsuccessful) judgment was that LAP did extend to legal advice given by members of a profession which has as an ordinary part of its function the giving of skilled legal advice. A copy of the Supreme Court judgment can be found here. 2 Bryan Cave LLP America | Europe | Asia www.bryancave.com For more information on this subject, please send your questions to your contact at Bryan Cave, or to: Cara Dowling Associate - London Tel.: +44 20 3207 Email: [email protected] Bryan Cave's alerts/bulletins/briefings are available online at www.bryancave.com/bulletins. If you received this alert/bulletin/briefing automatically and would like to stop receiving it in the future please email [email protected] with the subject line "opt-out" and specify which alert/bulletin/briefing you would like to stop receiving. Information contained herein is not to be considered as legal advice. Under the ethics rules of certain bar associations, this alert may be construed as an advertisement or solicitation. 3 Bryan Cave LLP America | Europe | Asia www.bryancave.com Hilary Term [2013] UKSC 1 On appeal from: [2010] EWCA Civ 1094 JUDGMENT R (on the application of Prudential plc and another) (Appellants) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax and another (Respondents) before Lord Neuberger, President Lord Hope, Deputy President Lord Walker Lord Mance Lord Clarke Lord Sumption Lord Reed JUDGMENT GIVEN ON 23 January 2013 Heard on 5, 6 and 7 November 2012 Appellants Respondents Lord Pannick QC James Eadie QC Conrad McDonnell Patrick Goodall (Instructed by (Instructed by Solicitor to PricewaterhouseCoopers Her Majesty's Revenue Legal LLP) and Customs ) Intervener (The Law Intervener (The General Society of England and Council of the Bar of Wales) England and Wales) Sir Sydney Kentridge QC Bankim Thanki QC Tom Adam QC Ben Valentin Tim Johnston Henry King Rebecca Loveridge (Instructed by Herbert (Instructed by Field Fisher Smith Freehills LLP ) Waterhouse LLP ) Intervener (The Institute Intervener (AIPPI UK of Chartered Accountants Group) in England and Wales) Patricia Robertson QC Michael Edenborough QC QC James Tumbridge (Instructed by Simmons & (Instructed by Gowlings Simmons LLP ) (UK) LLP ) Intervener (Legal Services Board) Philip Havers QC (Instructed by Legal Services Board) LORD NEUBERGER (with whom Lord Walker agrees) Introductory 1. The specific issue raised by this appeal is whether, following receipt of a statutory notice from an inspector of taxes to produce documents in connection with its tax affairs, a company is entitled to refuse to comply on the ground that the documents are covered by legal advice privilege (LAP), in a case where the legal advice was given by accountants in relation to a tax avoidance scheme. The more general question raised by this issue is whether LAP extends, or should be extended, so as to apply to legal advice given by someone other than a member of the legal profession, and, if so, how far LAP thereby extends, or should be extended. The statutory provisions applicable in this case 2. The statutory provisions in force at the time during which the events giving rise to the present proceedings took place were in the Taxes Management Act 1970 (“TMA”). All references in this judgment to sections are to sections of that Act, unless the contrary is stated. 3. Section 20(1)(a) provided that an inspector of taxes “may by notice in writing require a person … to deliver to him such documents … as (in the inspector’s reasonable opinion) contain, or may contain, information relevant to … (i) any tax liability to which that person is or may be subject, or (ii) the amount of any such liability”. Section 20(3) extended this power to require “any other person” to “deliver … or … make available” such documents to an inspector. By virtue of section 20(7), an inspector needed the consent of the special or general commissioners before serving a notice under either subsection.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The State of Legal Services 2020 Evidence Compendium
    Evidence Compendium THE STATE OF LEGAL SERVICES 2020 CONTENTS 1. Framework and data sources 4 Our approach 5 Data sources 6 2. Environmental context and drivers of change 8 Data from LSB’s Covid-19 dashboard 12 3. Access to legal services for all 14 Summary 15 Snapshot of legal needs 16 Unmet need and barriers to access 19 Legal capability 22 Advice seeking 24 Perceived accessibility of the justice system 26 Paying for legal services 30 Public funding and health of the third sector 33 4. Competition working for consumers 40 Summary 41 Shopping around on price and quality 42 Comparison tools 48 Price competition 49 Levels of innovation and technology adoption 53 Unregulated market 58 The State of Legal Services 2020 § Evidence Compendium § 3 5. Regulation that commands public and professional confidence 62 Summary 63 Quality of legal services 64 Seeking redress 70 Professional conduct 75 Perceptions of legal professionals 82 Regulation: awareness and general public confidence 84 Confidence in the legal system 85 Independence of the legal system 88 6. A diverse and inclusive profession 92 Summary 93 Introduction 94 Availability of data 95 Protected characteristics 96 Socio-economic background 108 Mental health and wellbeing 113 Diversity of judiciary 115 7. A successful and sustainable profession 118 Summary 119 Snapshot of sector 120 Alternative business structures and external investment 123 Economic health of sector 125 The impact of Covid-19 127 Legal aid sector 130 Cost of regulation 132 International standing of jurisdiction 136 8. Endnotes 140 1. FRAMEWORK AND DATA SOURCES The State of Legal Services 2020 § Evidence Compendium § 5 Our approach 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Appellants) V Legal Services Board (Respondent
    Trinity Term [2015] UKSC 41 On appeal from: [2014] EWCA Civ 1276 JUDGMENT R (on the application of Lumsdon and others) (Appellants) v Legal Services Board (Respondent) before Lord Neuberger, President Lady Hale, Deputy President Lord Clarke Lord Reed Lord Toulson JUDGMENT GIVEN ON 24 June 2015 Heard on 16 March 2015 Appellants Respondent Tom de la Mare QC Nigel Giffin QC Mark Trafford QC Martin Chamberlain QC Tom Richards Jana Sadler-Forster (Instructed by Baker & (Instructed by Fieldfisher) McKenzie LLP) Intervener (Bar Standards Board) Timothy Dutton QC Tetyana Nesterchuk (Instructed by Bevan Brittan LLP) Page 2 LORD REED AND LORD TOULSON: (with whom Lord Neuberger, Lady Hale and Lord Clarke agree) 1. The Legal Services Board (“the Board”) was established by the Legal Services Act 2007 (“the 2007 Act”). It exercises supervisory functions in relation to approved regulators of persons carrying on legal activities, including the Bar Standards Board (“BSB”), the Solicitors Regulation Authority (“SRA”) and the ILEX Professional Standards Board (“IPS”). 2. This appeal concerns the lawfulness of the Board’s decision on 26 July 2013 to grant a joint application by the BSB, SRA and IPS for approval of alterations to their regulatory arrangements, under Part 3 of Schedule 4 to the 2007 Act. The alterations gave effect to the Quality Assurance Scheme for Advocates (“the scheme”), which provides for the assessment of the performance of criminal advocates in England and Wales by judges. 3. The appellants are barristers practising criminal law. They seek judicial review of the decision on a variety of grounds, all of which were rejected by the Divisional Court and the Court of Appeal: [2014] EWHC 28 (Admin) and [2014] EWCA Civ 1276 respectively.
    [Show full text]
  • Barriers to the Legal Profession
    Barriers to the legal profession Rosaline Sullivan July 2010 1 Introduction “Increasingly, children‟s success at school determines their success as adults, determining whether and where they go to college (university), what profession they enter, and how much they are paid” (Buckham and Lee, 2002). The provision of legal services at the highest levels and in the most prestigious firms is dominated by white, male lawyers from the highest socio-economic groups. Our belief is that such an outcome does not occur as a result of overt discrimination but instead barriers to entry and progression occur over the lifetime of individuals seeking a career in law from initial education, to training, to gaining experience within a law firm. This paper explores each stage that an individual follows in pursuing a career in law and the evidence that can help explain the socio-economic characteristics of lawyers we see in England and Wales. Overall purpose of research The Legal Services Board (LSB) has been formed to reform and modernise the regulation of the legal services market place in the interests of consumers. One focus of the LSB‟s first year was on “promoting access to a diverse profession”. In 2010/11 the LSB extends this area of focus to “developing a workforce for a changing market”, enabling us to consider more widely what consumers and procurers of legal services need, want and should be able to expect from the legal workforce. Promoting a legal workforce that is open to the widest pool of talent is recognised across the sector and government as a priority area.
    [Show full text]
  • Reshaping Legal Services
    Reshaping legal services A draft strategy for the sector December 2020 1 Contents The sector and our role in it ........................................................................................ 3 Our approach to the strategy ...................................................................................... 7 Priorities for the sector in 2021-24 ........................................................................... 10 Fairer outcomes…………………………………………………………………………….11 Stronger confidence………………………………………………………………………..16 Better services……………………………………………………………………………...21 2 The sector and our role in it The legal services sector The legal sector is of great public importance. People often need legal services at important or stressful moments in their lives. This might involve a major purchase, buying a home, relationship issues, resolving a dispute, getting injured, being arrested or facing deportation. The legal services sector makes a vital contribution to the UK economy. Consumer spending on legal services makes an important contribution to economic growth, but all industries, charities, local and central government, and other types of users, also rely on legal services. Legal services are integral to our way of life, protecting citizens’ rights and freedoms, and supporting people to challenge decisions made by public bodies. Critically, legal services are central to upholding the rule of law and supporting the effective administration of justice. Our legal system has global influence. English law is used as the basis for resolving disputes in large parts of the world and this jurisdiction remains a dispute resolution centre of choice. Our legal professionals’ expertise is much valued overseas, contributing strongly to exports. Other jurisdictions are taking inspiration from our regulatory model – a permissive regime allowing a range of business models and independent regulation – to liberalise their markets. Legal services are provided by a wide range of professionals and businesses, with solicitors and barristers used the most by consumers.
    [Show full text]
  • 2. the Market for Legal Services in India 15 Regulatory Restrictions on India’S Legal Services Sector 17
    ECONOMIC IMPACT ANAL YSIS A BALANCING ACT Cost-Benefit Analysis of Reforming India’s Legal Services Market May 2016 i A BALANCING ACT: Cost-Benefit Analysis of Reforming India’s Legal Services Market (May 2016) Disclaimer: This report is a result of analysis conducted by Nathan Associates. The authors grant to all users a license to copy, use and distribute the results of the report publicly for any reasonable non- commercial purpose, subject to proper attribution of authorship and ownership of the rights. ii Contents Summary 1 Introduction 3 1. The Global Market for Legal Services 5 Trends in the Global Market 5 Market Concentration 6 Lessons for India from International Experience 8 2. The Market for Legal Services in India 15 Regulatory Restrictions on India’s Legal Services Sector 17 3. A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Reforms 25 Framework of the Study 25 Approach 25 Data Collection 26 Results of Business Survey 28 Results of Legal Service Providers Survey 34 4. Conclusions and Recommendations 41 Relaxing Regulatory Restrictions 42 Introducing Changes in the Governance of the Sector 43 Strengthening Capacity of the Sector 43 Annexure A: Cross-Country Studies 45 The Legal Services Sector in the United Kingdom (UK) 45 The Legal Services Sector in China 52 The Legal Services Sector in Australia 56 The Legal Services Sector in Singapore 60 The Legal Services Sector in Israel 65 The Legal Services Sector in Malaysia 70 The Legal Services Sector in Brazil 75 Annexure B: Stakeholder Survey Analysis 81 Annexure C: Business Enterprise and Law Firm
    [Show full text]
  • Research Note on the Legal Services Market & ABS Impacts
    Research note The legal services market August 2011 Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................. 1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 5 Purpose of the Document ........................................................................................ 5 Regulatory Structure ................................................................................................ 6 Limitations ................................................................................................................ 6 Background .............................................................................................................. 8 LSA and the regulators ............................................................................................ 8 Reform of Regulatory Arrangements: Part 5 of the LSA 2007 ............................ 10 Existing regulatory arrangements and outcome focused regulation ................ 11 Legal Disciplinary Practices – a step toward ABS? ............................................ 12 The Australian experience ..................................................................................... 17 European Experience ............................................................................................. 20 The England and Wales legal services markets .................................................. 21 Market trends .........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Review of Pupillage Report of the Working Group
    Review of Pupillage Report of the Working Group CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 3 1 WHAT IS PUPILLAGE? 9 2 THE CURRENT REGIME 15 3 THE PUPILS 26 4 TRAINING ORGANISATIONS 44 5 SUPERVISORS 53 6 RECRUITMENT OF PUPILS 60 7 DURATION AND PLACE OF PUPILLAGE 74 8 FUNDING 81 9 THE THIRD SIX 97 10 STANDARDS AND ASSESSMENT OF PERFORMANCE 99 11 TRAINING IN THE WORKPLACE 103 12 THE ROLE OF THE INNS, CIRCUITS, ADVOCACY TRAINING 113 COUNCIL AND SPECIALIST BAR ASSOCIATIONS 13 TRAINING OF SUPERVISORS 124 14 COMPLAINTS, GRIEVANCES AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE 133 RULES OF THE PROFESSION 15 MONITORING OF PUPILLAGE BY THE BSB 141 16 FUTURE OF PUPILLAGE 147 17 SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 153 ANNEXES 1 LIST OF MEMBERS 163 2 TERMS OF REFERENCE 165 3 LIST OF CONSULTEES 166 4 LIST OF EVIDENCE AND RESEARCH 169 5 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS 173 6 ANNUAL PUPILLAGE SURVEY 175 7 LIST AND ASSEMBLY OF TABLES USED IN THE REPORT 178 2 BAR STANDARDS BOARD REVIEW OF PUPILLAGE REPORT OF THE WORKING GROUP INTRODUCTION 1. The regulation of the Bar of England and Wales was, until 1966, vested in the Inns of Court. Between 1966 and 1987 it was the shared responsibility of the Inns and the General Council of the Bar (the Bar Council). From 1987 onwards the Bar Council alone, but subject to appropriate consultation with the Inns through the Inns‟ Council (COIC), was the regulator. The Bar Council also exercised representative functions on behalf of the profession. With effect from 1st January 2006 those functions were split. The body responsible for the regulation of the Bar is now the Bar Standards Board (the BSB).
    [Show full text]
  • Katherine Jane Lumsdon and Others -V- Legal Services Board and Others
    Neutral Citation Number: [2013] EWHC 28 (Admin) Case No: CO/12583/2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION DIVISIONAL COURT Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Date: 20/01/2014 Before : THE PRESIDENT OF THE QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION (SIR BRIAN LEVESON) MR JUSTICE BEAN MR JUSTICE CRANSTON BETWEEN THE QUEEN on the application of (1) KATHERINE JANE LUMSDON (2) RUFUS TAYLOR (3) DAVID HOWKER QC (4) CHRISTOPHER HEWERTSON Claimants - and - LEGAL SERVICES BOARD Defendant - and - (1) GENERAL COUNCIL OF THE BAR (acting by the BAR STANDARDS BOARD) (2) SOLICITORS REGULATION AUTHORITY (3) ILEX PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS (4) LAW SOCIETY Interested Parties Dinah Rose QC, Tom de la Mare QC, Mark Trafford, Charlotte Kilroy and Jana Sadler- Forster (instructed by Baker & McKenzie) for the Claimants Nigel Giffin QC and Duncan Sinclair (instructed by Field Fisher Waterhouse) for the Defendant (LSB) Timothy Dutton QC and Tetyana Nesterchuk (instructed by Bevan Brittan) for the First Interested Party (BSB) Chloe Carpenter (instructed by Kingsley Napley) for the Second Interested Party (SRA) Helen Mountfield QC and Chris Buttler (instructed by Natalie Turner) for the Fourth Interested Party (Law Society) The Third Interested Party did not appear and was not represented Hearing dates: 28-29 November and 2 December 2013 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Approved Judgment Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. Lumsdon v Legal Services Board The President of the Queen’s Bench Division: This is the judgment of the Court, to which we have all contributed. Introduction 1. It is a critical test of the freedom inherent in our democratic society that those accused (usually by the State) of committing criminal offences can and should be represented by capable criminal advocates, independent in spirit who, subject to the rules of law and procedure which operate in our courts and to the dictates of professional propriety, are prepared to put the interests of their clients at the forefront and irrespective of personal disadvantage.
    [Show full text]
  • From Recession to Upturn Financial Management and Strategy for Law Firms
    From recession to upturn Financial management and strategy for law firms ANDREW OTTERBURN AND FIONA WESTWOOD From recession to upturn Financial management and strategy for law firms ANDREW OTTERBURN AND FIONA WESTWOOD Copyright © The Law Society 2009 Adapted from the edition first published in England and Wales by the Law Society of England and Wales in 2009 This edition published in Scotland in 2010 by The Law Society of Scotland, 26 Drumsheugh Gardens Edinburgh EH3 7YR Design and artwork by Claire Lovie, Edinburgh Email: [email protected] FROM RECESSION TO UPTURN About the authors Andrew Otterburn A chartered accountant and management consultant, Andrew has advised around 250 firms in the UK and Ireland on their management and profitability. He is joint author of the annual survey of law firms in Scotland, published by the Law Society of Scotland. His most recent book, “Profitability and Law Firm Management” was published by the Law Society in 2002, with the second edition published in 2007. In 2006 he was an advisor to Lord Carter’s review of legal aid procurement in England and Wales. He is a member of the Executive Committee of the Law Management Section, a founding member of the The Law Consultancy Network, and a core MBA faculty member and module leader for the Nottingham Law School MBA in Legal Practice. Fiona Westwood Fiona Westwood worked in private practice for 20 years before setting up Westwood Associates in 1994 as a management consultancy specialising in strategic development for professional firms. She is a founding member of the The Law Consultancy Network, a member of the Law Society of Scotland’s Standards Working Party and CPD project leader on their Education and Training Review.
    [Show full text]
  • Ongoing Competence Paper (20) 48
    SERVICES BOARD Meeting: Legal Services Board Date: 20 October 2020 Item: Paper (20) 48 Title: Emerging themes in ongoing competence Author / Introduced by: Margie McCrone Status: Official Introduction: Purpose of the paper / Issue 1. This paper shares emerging themes from our analysis of information gathered during the recent call for evidence on ongoing competence. It also sets out the immediate next steps for our work in this area. Recommendations 2. The Board is asked to consider the emerging themes and provide feedback. This will inform a report on our findings that will be published in December 2020, forming the basis for further engagement with stakeholders. Background 3. The ongoing competence project aims to understand if legal regulators have appropriate frameworks in place to ensure that the professionals they regulate remain competent throughout their careers. 4. The scope of work was discussed by the Board in June 2019. Our focus since then has been on building a strong evidence base, which has included gathering information about current approaches to competence assurance in the legal services sector and other sectors. Our call for evidence was completed in the first six months of 2020, resulting in: • 50 targeted stakeholder meetings • 30+ formal responses to the call for evidence • 50+ additional datasets, research and other relevant information shared with us or sourced in desk research. 5. We have had positive engagement with many stakeholders so far, including: • the regulatory bodies and approved regulators • regulators in other sectors e.g. General Medical Council, Civil Aviation Authority Board Paper (20) 48 • government agencies e.g. HM Courts and Tribunals Service • consumer groups e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • General Legal Services (RM 3786) Customer Guidance Document
    General Legal Services (RM 3786) Customer Guidance Document INTRODUCTION Purpose of this Document Crown Commercial Service (“CCS”) and the Government Legal Department (the “GLD”) have developed this guidance to assist Government departments and other enabled Central Government customers (“Customers”) through each stage of their procurement of legal services using the General Legal Services Panel Agreement (RM 3786) (the “Panel Agreement” or “Panel”). Background to the Panel The Panel Agreement has been procured to replace the Legal Services Framework (RM919), taking into account consultations with customers and suppliers of its predecessors the Legal Service Panel (RM919) and the Legal Services Panel (RM373). This Panel covers supply of General Legal Advice Services to Central Government, Executive Agencies and a defined list of other Central Government Customers set out at Appendix 2 and is designed to meet the vast majority of these Customers’ requirements for external legal services. A specialist Panel covering Rail Legal Services (RM3756) is to be awarded in May 2017, and a further Panel to cover legal services for Finance and Highly Complex Transactions (RM3787) is expected to be in place by late summer 2017. The Panel Agreement has been set up following a joint procurement project between CCS and the GLD with CCS as the contracting authority. The Panel consists of 18 quality assured legal services suppliers (12 suppliers appointed to Tier 1, and 6 suppliers appointed to Tier 2), which are able to supply a wide range of Mandatory Legal advice services covering elements of public, private and commercial law to assist with complex and often specialised legal issues and projects for Central Government and other enabled bodies.
    [Show full text]
  • Alternative Business Structures and the Legal Profession in Ontario: a Discussion Paper
    Alternative Business Structures and the Legal Profession in Ontario: A Discussion Paper Alternative Business Structures Working Group Members Malcolm Mercer, Co-Chair | Susan McGrath, Co-Chair Constance Backhouse | Marion Boyd | Ross Earnshaw | Susan Elliott | Carol Hartman | Jacqueline Horvat Brian Lawrie |Jeffrey Lem |Jan Richardson | James Scarfone | Alan Silverstein | Peter Wardle TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Purpose .................................................................................................................................. 4 2. The current state of affairs .................................................................................................. 6 2.1 The Law Society’s mandate .......................................................................................... 6 2.2 Business structures now permitted for lawyers and paralegals ........................ 7 2.3 Challenges under the current system ........................................................................ 7 2.4 Availability of unregulated legal services ................................................................. 8 3. Considering alternative business structures ................................................................. 9 3.1 What are alternative business structures? ............................................................... 9 3.2 Why the Law Society is considering the ABS model ........................................... 10 I. Access considerations ...................................................................................................
    [Show full text]