Guide to Professional Conduct
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
1 Legal Terms Used in Scottish Court Procedure, Neil Kelly Partner
Legal Terms Used in Scottish Court Procedure, Neil Kelly Partner, MacRoberts Many recent reported adjudication decisions have come from the Scottish Courts. Therefore, as part of the case notes update, we have included a brief explanation of some of the Scottish Court procedures. There are noted below certain legal terms used in Scottish Court Procedure with a brief explanation of them. This is done in an attempt to give some readers a better understanding of some of the terms used in the Scottish cases highlighted on this web-site. 1. Action: Legal proceedings before a Court in Scotland initiated by Initial Writ or Summons. 2. Adjustment (of Pleadings): The process by which a party changes its written pleadings during the period allowed by the Court for adjustment. 3. Amendment (of Pleadings): The process by which a party changes its written pleadings after the period for adjustment has expired. Amendment requires leave of the Court. 4. Appeal to Sheriff Principal: In certain circumstances an appeal may be taken from a decision of a Sheriff to the Sheriff Principal. In some cases leave of the Sheriff is required. 5. Appeal to Court of Session: In certain circumstances an appeal may be taken from a decision of a Sheriff directly to the Court of Session or from a decision of the Sheriff Principal to the Court of Session. Such an appeal may require leave of the Sheriff or Sheriff Principal who pronounced the decision. Such an appeal will be heard by the Inner House of the Court of Session. 6. Arrestment: The process of diligence under which a Pursuer (or Defender in a counterclaim) can obtain security for a claim by freezing moveable (personal) property of the debtor in the hands of third parties e.g. -
Statement of Standards for Solicitor Advocates – Performance Indicators
Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 section 25A (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/46) Rights of Audience in the Court of Session, the High Court of Justiciary, the Supreme Court and Judicial Committee of the Privy Council Statutory requirements: 1) Completion to the satisfaction of the Council of a course of training in evidence and pleading in relation to proceedings in the Courts to which rights of audience are sought 2) Has such knowledge as appears to the Council to be appropriate of (1) the practice and procedure of and (2) professional conduct in regard to those Courts 3) That the Council is satisfied that the applicant is, having regard among other things to the applicant’s experience in appropriate proceedings in the sheriff court, otherwise a fit and proper person to have a right of audience in those Courts Rules C4:1 Rights of Audience in the Civil Courts (http://www.lawscot.org.uk/rules- and-guidance/section-c-specialities/rule-c4-solicitor-advocates/rules/c41-rights-of- audience-in-the-civil-courts/), C4:2 Rights of Audience in the Criminal Courts (http://www.lawscot.org.uk/rules-and-guidance/section-c-specialities/rule-c4-solicitor- advocates/rules/c42-rights-of-audience-in-the-criminal-courts/), C4:3 Order of Precedence, Instructions (http://www.lawscot.org.uk/rules-and-guidance/section-c- specialities/rule-c4-solicitor-advocates/rules/c43-order-of-precedence,-instructions- and-representation/), and Representation and C4:4 Conduct of Solicitor Advocates (http://www.lawscot.org.uk/rules-and-guidance/section-c-specialities/rule-c4-solicitor- advocates/rules/c44-conduct-of-solicitor-advocates/) apply. -
Outer House, Court of Session
OUTER HOUSE, COURT OF SESSION [2018] CSOH 61 P1293/17 OPINION OF LORD BOYD OF DUNCANSBY in the Petition of ANDREW WIGHTMAN MSP AND OTHERS Petitioners TOM BRAKE MP AND CHRIS LESLIE MP, Additional Parties for Judicial Review against SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EXITING THE EUROPEAN UNION Respondents Petitioners: O’Neill QC, Welsh; Balfour + Manson LLP Additional Parties: M Ross QC; Harper Macleod LLP Respondents: Johnston QC, Webster; Office of the Advocate General 8 June 2018 Introduction [1] On 23 June 2016 the people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union. Following the Supreme Court case of Miller (R (Miller and another) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2018] AC 61) the United Kingdom Parliament enacted the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 authorising the Prime Minister to notify under article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) the UK’s intention to 2 withdraw from the European Union. On 29 March 2017 the Prime Minister, in a letter addressed to the European Council (EC), gave notice under article 50(2) of the TEU (the “article 50 notification”) of the UK’s intention to withdraw. [2] Can that notice be unilaterally revoked by the UK acting in good faith such that the United Kingdom could continue to be a member of the European Union after 29 March 2019 on the same terms and conditions as it presently enjoys? That is the question which the petitioners and the additional parties wish answered. [3] All but one of the petitioners is an elected representative. -
Practice Direction 23 Court Applications
Practice Direction 23 Court Applications Date Issued: 21 June 2013 Date Implemented: 24 June 2013 Date Last Revised: 26 January 2015 SUMMARY Role of Reporters and General Principles Reporters are to: • promote the general principles in relation to the welfare of the child being paramount, views of the child and minimum intervention as they apply to court applications1, • be fair, knowledgeable and proficient in relation to relevant statutory provisions and court procedures, and • in proof applications make all reasonable efforts to bring about a prompt decision in relation to the application. Process of proof applications A proof application must be made within 7 days of the grounds hearing. The court rules set out the form of application. A proof application must be heard within 28 days of being lodged. Jurisdiction of proof applications An application in relation to offence grounds must be made to the sheriff who would have jurisdiction if the child were being prosecuted for the offence. For non-offence grounds, the application must be made to the sheriff court district where the child is habitually resident. On cause shown, the sheriff may remit any application to another sheriff court. Service, attendance and representation in proof applications The sheriff may dispense with (i) service of all or part of the application on the child, and (ii) the attendance of the child. Reporters must include information on dispensing with service and attendance in the application (if applicable). On receipt of the warrant to cite, the reporter must forthwith serve this and a copy of the application on the child (unless service has been dispensed with), each relevant person and any safeguarder. -
162 INTERNATIONAL LAWYER Long Before the 1957 Law, Indigent
162 INTERNATIONAL LAWYER Long before the 1957 law, indigent litigants could obtain exemption from judicial fees payable for actions in courts. The presently effective statute, 53 which dates from 1936, is part of the Code of Civil Procedure; it regulates in detail the bases on which an indigent litigant can obtain a waiver of court costs. A person who seeks legal aid either gratuitously or at a reduced rate initiates his request by obtaining from the Municipality a form, which must be filled out personally by the applicant, setting forth the financial situation on which he bases his claim that he is unable to obtain needed assistance via his own resources. Information furnished on the form is checked by the Municipality, and the application is then submitted to the consultation bureau for processing and determination of the legal aid which will be furnished. Information furnished by the applicant is further subject to examination by the court which may seek confirmation of the financial condition alleged from the tax authorities. 2. CRIMINAL MATTERS Counsel has always been available to indigent defendants in criminal matters involving a felony. 154 Within the jurisdiction of each court of first instance, a court-appointed Council for Legal Assistance functions in crim- inal matters, consisting of at least three attorneys. The Council assigns attorneys to indigent defendants in criminal matters as provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure and further as the Council may deem fit. Each defendant in provisional custody must be assigned counsel by the president of the court before which the matter will be adjudicated. -
Annual Report 2016–2017
Annual Report 2016–2017 Annual Report 2016–2017 Published pursuant to section 18 of the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008 Laid before the Scottish Parliament by the Scottish Ministers SG/2017/132 © Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland (JABS) copyright 2017 The text in this document (this excludes, where present, the Royal Arms and all departmental or agency logos) may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium provided that it is reproduced accurately and not in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as JABS copyright and the document title specified. Where third party material has been identified, permission from the respective copyright holder must be sought. Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at: Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland Thistle House 91 Haymarket Terrace Edinburgh EH12 5HD E-mail: [email protected] This publication is only available on our website at www.judicialappointments.scot Published by the Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland, September 2017 Designed in the UK by LBD Creative Ltd Annual Report 2016–2017 Contents Our aims ii Foreword 1 Introduction and Membership 3 Committees and Groups 6 Diversity 11 Appointment Rounds 12 Meetings and Outreach 20 Tribunals 21 Complaints 22 Freedom of Information 23 Secretariat 24 Website 25 Financial Statement 26 Annex 1: Board Members and Lay Selection Panel Members 27 Annex 2: Board Member Attendance 33 i i JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS BOARD FOR SCOTLAND Our aims are: To attract applicants of the highest calibre, to encourage diversity in the range of those available for selection, and to recommend applicants for appointment to judicial office on merit through processes that are fair, transparent and command respect. -
Florida Guardian Advocate Law and Information
FLORIDA GUARDIAN ADVOCATE LAW AND INFORMATION (Guardian Advocate of the Person Only) Eighteenth Judicial Circuit Seminole County, Florida Effective as of July 2017 FLORIDA GUARDIAN ADVOCATE LAW AND INFORMATION COMMITTEE MEMBERS Honorable John Harris Chief Judge, Eighteenth Judicial Circuit Titusville Courthouse 506 S. Palm Ave. Titusville, FL 32796-3501 Silvia McLain, JD Seminole County Bar Association Legal Aid Society, Inc. 101 West Palmetto Avenue Longwood, Florida 32750 Lori Loftis, JD Office of Criminal Conflict & Civil Regional Counsel 101 Sunnytown Road Casselberry, Florida 32707 Sarah M. Wood, JD, PhD Pro Bono Attorney Seminole County Bar Association Legal Aid Society, Inc. 101 West Palmetto Avenue Longwood, Florida 32750 Christian Triay Law Student Intern Nova Southeastern Law School JD Candidate 2019 This guide does not constitute legal advice and is intended merely to serve as a resource. Please consult with your attorney for legal advice. Please be aware that the law may change and you should consult with your attorney for assistance. Effective as of July 2017 Guide for the Process of Applying to be a Guardian Advocate for a Person with a Developmental Disability What is a Guardian Advocate? Parents no longer have the legal authority to make decisions for their children after they turn 18 years of age. Guardian Advocacy is a process for family members, caregivers, or friends of individuals with a developmental disability to obtain the legal authority to act on their behalf if the person lacks the decision-making ability to do some, but not all, of the decision-making tasks necessary to care for his or her person or property. -
Adam Mckinlay
Advocates Library, Parliament House, Edinburgh, EH1 1RF Telephone: 0131 226 2881 Facsimile : 0131 225 3642 DX ED 549302, Edinburgh 36, LP3 Edinburgh 10 Adam McKinlay Year of Call: 2018 [email protected] 07753 267455 Professional Career to date Devil Masters: Chris Paterson, Dan Byrne, Sarah Livingstone 2017-2018: Devil, Faculty of Advocates 2015-2017: Solicitor Advocate & Associate, Brodies LLP 2012-2015: Senior Solicitor, Brodies LLP 2010-2012: Solicitor, Brodies LLP 2008-2010: Trainee, Brodies LLP Education & Professional Qualifications Lord Reid Scholarship, Faculty of Advocates (2017-2018) Chartered Insurance Institute, Diploma in Insurance (2014) Diploma in Legal Practice, University of Edinburgh (2008) LLB (Hons) (First Class), University of Edinburgh (2007) Academic Prizes: Lord President Cooper Memorial Prize (2007) – Honours Student of Outstanding Distinction John Hastie Scholarship (2007) – best performance in Ordinary courses by an LLB graduate Miller Prize (2005) – class prize for Commercial Law Tods Murray Scholarship (2005) – combined prize for Commercial and Property Law James Craig Howie Memorial Prize (2005) – combined prize for private law subjects McGrigors Prize (2005) – combined prize for Commercial Law, Property and Taxation Margaret Balfour Keith Prize (2004) – class prize for Public Law Thow Scholarship (2004) – class prize for Obligations Areas of Expertise Professional Liability Construction and Engineering Commercial Contracts Commercial Property Public Law, Judicial Review and Human Rights Alternative Dispute Resolution Professional Experience Adam called to the Bar in 2018 as the Lord Reid Scholar 2017-18. Adam’s areas of practice are commercial and public law. He has a particular expertise in professional negligence actions. He also regularly acts for clients in construction, property and contractual disputes and has significant experience of obtaining interim orders. -
The Scottish Bar: the Evolution of the Faculty of Advocates in Its Historical Setting, 28 La
Louisiana Law Review Volume 28 | Number 2 February 1968 The cottS ish Bar: The volutE ion of the Faculty of Advocates in Its Historical Setting Nan Wilson Repository Citation Nan Wilson, The Scottish Bar: The Evolution of the Faculty of Advocates in Its Historical Setting, 28 La. L. Rev. (1968) Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/lalrev/vol28/iss2/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at LSU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Louisiana Law Review by an authorized editor of LSU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE SCOTTISH BAR: THE EVOLUTION OF THE FACULTY OF ADVOCATES IN ITS HISTORICAL SOCIAL SETTING Nan Wilson* Although the expression "advocate" is used in early Scottish statutes such as the Act of 1424, c. 45, which provided for legal aid to the indigent, the Faculty of Advocates as such dates from 1532 when the Court of Session was constituted as a College of Justice. Before this time, though friends of litigants could appear as unpaid amateurs, there had, of course, been professional lawyers, lay and ecclesiastical, variously described as "fore- speakers," procurators and prolocutors. The functions of advo- cate and solicitor had not yet been differentiated, though the notary had been for historical reasons. The law teacher was then essentially an ecclesiastic. As early as 1455, a distinctive costume (a green tabard) for pleaders was prescribed by Act of Parliament.' Between 1496 and 1501, at least a dozen pleaders can be identified as in extensive practice before the highest courts, and procurators appeared regularly in the Sheriff Courts.2 The position of notary also flourished in Scotland as on the Continent, though from 1469 the King asserted the exclusive right to appoint candidates for that branch of legal practice. -
Judicial Review Scope and Grounds
JUDICIAL REVIEW SCOPE AND GROUNDS By Scott Blair, Advocate THE TRIGONOMETRY OF JUDICIAL REVIEW In Scotland, unlike England and Wales, the judicial review jurisdiction is not limited to cases which have an element of public law. As explained by Lord President Hope in West v. Secretary of State for Scotland 1992 SC 385 at 413 the scope of judicial review is as follows: “ The following propositions are intended therefore to define the principles by reference to which the competency of all applications to the supervisory jurisdiction under Rule of Court 260B is to be determined: 1. The Court of Session has power, in the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction, to regulate the process by which decisions are taken by any person or body to whom a jurisdiction, power or authority has been delegated or entrusted by statute, agreement or any other instrument. 2. The sole purpose for which the supervisory jurisdiction may be exercised is to ensure that the person or body does not exceed or abuse that jurisdiction, power or authority or fail to do what the jurisdiction, power or authority requires. 3. The competency of the application does not depend upon any distinction between public law and private law, nor is it confined to those cases which English law has accepted as amenable to judicial review, nor is it correct in regard to issues about competency to describe judicial review under Rule of Court 260B as a public law remedy. By way of explanation we would emphasise these important points: (a) Judicial review is available, not to provide machinery for an appeal, but to ensure that the decision-maker does not exceed or abuse his powers or fail to perform the duty which has been delegated or entrusted to him. -
Civil Justice - Civil Courts and Tribunals (Republished)
SPICe Briefing Pàipear-ullachaidh SPICe Civil Justice - Civil Courts and Tribunals (republished) Abigail Bremner The civil justice system enables people to protect or enforce their legal rights. This briefing looks at the structure of civil courts and tribunals in Scotland. Note that this briefing is a re-edited version of the SPICe briefing Civil Justice - Civil Courts and Tribunals, published in December 2016. 11 May 2017 SB 17/30 Civil Justice - Civil Courts and Tribunals (republished), SB 17/30 Contents What this briefing is about ________________________________________________4 Useful definitions _______________________________________________________5 What is civil justice? _____________________________________________________6 The civil courts are being reformed _________________________________________6 How devolution affects the civil courts _______________________________________7 Who's who in Scotland's civil court system __________________________________8 The role of the Lord President _____________________________________________8 The role of the Lord Justice Clerk __________________________________________8 The role of the Scottish Civil Justice Council __________________________________8 The sheriff courts ______________________________________________________10 Who's who in the sheriff courts ___________________________________________10 Summary sheriffs are likely to increase in number ____________________________ 11 Reforms enable sheriffs and summary sheriffs to specialise_____________________ 11 The Sheriff Personal -
Patronising Lawyers? Homophily and Same-Sex Litigation Teams Before the UK Supreme Court
Patronising Lawyers? Homophily and Same-Sex Litigation Teams before the UK Supreme Court Chris Hanretty School of Political, Social and International Studies, University of East Anglia Steven Vaughan Law School, University of Birmingham Abstract In this paper, we investigate patterns of team formation amongst barristers who appeared before the UK Supreme Court between October 2009 and August 2015. We show that there is evidence of considerable gender homophily in the formation of teams of barristers appearing before the UK Supreme Court. Same- sex teams of barristers are over-represented compared to the number we would expect if barristers paired up randomly. We also show that this gender homophily remains when we allow for the possibility that barristers pair up randomly within their chambers, or within their area of law. As such, the formation of teams of barristers in the Supreme Court is governed by practices and preferences which make same-sex legal teams more likely than they would be if team formation simply involved a gender-blind draw from a pool of lawyers. Barristers appearing before the Supreme Court prefer, for whatever reason, to work with other barristers of the same sex. We set out reasons why homophily in team formation is undesirable and discuss the routes through which different remedies might operate. Acknowledgements We are grateful for comments on an earlier draft from the two anonymous referees, Nicholas Allen (barrister, 29 Bedford Row), Fiona de Londras, John Flood, Jeremy Hopkins (former Practice Manager at 3 Verulam Buildings), Marc Mason and Erika Rackley. Chris gave a version of this paper at the University of Copenhagen in March 2016 at a Workshop entitled, ‘Trust, Social Capital and Networks: A different perspective on International Courts’.