Collins J Develops His FinsThe United Kingdom is filled with incompetent, arrogant, greedy lawyers who find themselves in a position of power when dealing with patients or the medical profession. Most assume that they know the law and that no one else can can read.
I recently read the Midstaffordshire NHS Foundation Inquiry. It is of course a laughable report that bares no resemblance to real medicine. The GMC have decided to consider action against the doctors who failed to report the concerns at Mid Staffordshire.
Robert Francis QC stated
I believe the same test should be applied to lawyers. For the sake of all barristers at Robert Francis' QC's chambers who have failed doctors, slithered from the truth, touted the sick doctors defence, I have developed an alternative statement
Complaints against solicitors have risen by a third according to the Law Society Gazette. The SRA's performance is listed here. In 2002, barristers faced a sharp increase in complaints. Beaumont considers the fact that the Bar Council complaints process should be made more tolerable. Beaumont was sent the widening concept of misconduct as applied to doctors in R v GMC Ex Parte Pal. He made little comment. We therefore conclude that he is of the view that doctors deserve the complaints procedure they get and processes for a barrister must be "Fair". Beaumont has essentially remained tight lipped on the slipshod approach by the GMC. He says that the professions are over regulated. Perhaps I can agree with this but I can assure you that lawyers are not regulated enough. Beaumont will not approve of this concept but mine is a relatively personal comment and I am entitled to this. It is a fact of life that numerous barristers have remained silent regarding the human rights abuses that have continued at the General Medical Council. They have continued to take their money and run. There is nothing fair about the General Medical Council and few barristers have protected doctors from it. Therefore there is no reason why we should sidle up to Beaumont's viewpoint or sympathize with him.
It is the barristers who are registered with the Bar Council who flout their own conduct rules when representing against and for doctors. Many who represent innocent junior doctors simply cannot be bothered. Why bother when the defence unions will pay them anyway? Many doctors are simply allowed to flounder and are left with their career in tatters while the lawyer makes a bagful of money then disappears. These barristers rely on the fact that very few of them are admonished by the Bar Council. It is this lack of accountability that gives barristers the right to abuse their clients.
In my view, I believe that lawyers should be subjected to the same tests as doctors. For instance, I believe that all barristers and lawyers should be subjected to yearly revalidation and appraisals to be assessed by the SRA and Bar Council respectively. Dr Helen Bright laughed at the pitiful mere 16 hours of Continuous Professional Development that lawyers have to do. No wonder lawyers fail to read most documents.
In my view, Dame Janet Smith invented revalidation therefore the entire legal profession should be able to work by it. There is no reason whatsoever that the judges, solicitors and barristers should be unaccountable to the public. The General Teaching Council is considering checks on skills, there is no reason lawyers cannot have their skills such as reading and writing assessed. Afterall, they all offer a public service [ albeit quite badly in some cases] and the public should have a say in how they practice. Moreover, all the complaints against them should be held on databases so that they remain accessible by any court or authority.
Moreover, I am of the view that all medical regulatory cases should apply to lawyers as well. Doctors have to be subjected to to Bolton v Law Society. For this reason the widened view of misconduct [ R v GMC Ex Parte Pal] as applied to doctors has been sent for consideration by all regulatory bodies. In this case, misconduct no longer has to be " professional" in nature. It is only fair in love and war that lawyers live by the case law they created. It follows that any allegation that is capable of going to the integrity of the solicitor or barrister should be automatically investigated. Moreover, after the allegation passes the initial stage , a copy of the actual complaint should be sent to all courts, anyone the legal officer has dealings with and any members of the public they have represented in the past and the future. Comments should then be invited from all these people. Lawyers should not have any objection to this because members of their profession have drafted/agreed to the Fitness to Practise Rules 2004 of the General Medical Council.
Moreover, Collins J and Scott Baker LJ have both stated that there is "no prejudice" in this widened disclosure. They have also stated that every doctor should declare cleared complaints on their application forms. In my view, every barrister, solicitor and judge should declare every cleared complaint to the Courts and the claimant and defendant in every case they do. The subject matter of the complaint should be declared and this should not cause them any prejudice given the judgments by these two learned judges.
Solicitors, barristers and judges should have no objections to this widened disclosure. Indeed, every medical professional and member of the public should try it. Any complaint that is made against a solicitor or a barrister should be sent to all the courts they work in and to all solicitor firms and clients. It should then be posted on the internet for responses from the public. This is of course the essence of revalidation and appraisal. If their performance does not come up to scratch, their practicing licenses should be immediately suspended [as specified by Robert Francis QC above].
The first victims of complaints of this kind should be the General Medical Council's solicitors and barristers. Please forward any complaints or concerns about them and we will be happy to place this online on a up and coming website called iwantgreatlawyers.com :).
Conflict of Interest - Claimant in R v General Medical Council Ex Parte Pal.
Dedicated to
1. Lord Justice Scot Baker [retired]
2. Justice Sir Andrew Collins [ Still not a Lord Justice and we wonder why]
3. Mark Shaw QC Counsel for the GMC.
I recently read the Midstaffordshire NHS Foundation Inquiry. It is of course a laughable report that bares no resemblance to real medicine. The GMC have decided to consider action against the doctors who failed to report the concerns at Mid Staffordshire.
Robert Francis QC stated
"Where unacceptable practice is identified or alleged on reasonable grounds, it is important that swift action is taken to protect patient safety and public confidence in the service provided by the hospital, whether by way of remedial training or other action, referral to the NCAAS, or referral to the General Medical Council. Such action must include suspension of the practitioner, where such a step is necessary to protect patient safety and the public interest, while the matter is fully investigated"
I believe the same test should be applied to lawyers. For the sake of all barristers at Robert Francis' QC's chambers who have failed doctors, slithered from the truth, touted the sick doctors defence, I have developed an alternative statement
" Where unacceptable practice is identified or alleged on reasonable grounds, it is important that swift action is taken to protect public safety and public confidence in the service provided by the solicitor or barrister, whether by way of remedial training or other action, referral to the SRA is essential. Such action must include the suspension of the legal practitioner, where such a step is necessary to protect patient safety and public interest, while the matter is fully investigated"
Complaints against solicitors have risen by a third according to the Law Society Gazette. The SRA's performance is listed here. In 2002, barristers faced a sharp increase in complaints. Beaumont considers the fact that the Bar Council complaints process should be made more tolerable. Beaumont was sent the widening concept of misconduct as applied to doctors in R v GMC Ex Parte Pal. He made little comment. We therefore conclude that he is of the view that doctors deserve the complaints procedure they get and processes for a barrister must be "Fair". Beaumont has essentially remained tight lipped on the slipshod approach by the GMC. He says that the professions are over regulated. Perhaps I can agree with this but I can assure you that lawyers are not regulated enough. Beaumont will not approve of this concept but mine is a relatively personal comment and I am entitled to this. It is a fact of life that numerous barristers have remained silent regarding the human rights abuses that have continued at the General Medical Council. They have continued to take their money and run. There is nothing fair about the General Medical Council and few barristers have protected doctors from it. Therefore there is no reason why we should sidle up to Beaumont's viewpoint or sympathize with him.
It is the barristers who are registered with the Bar Council who flout their own conduct rules when representing against and for doctors. Many who represent innocent junior doctors simply cannot be bothered. Why bother when the defence unions will pay them anyway? Many doctors are simply allowed to flounder and are left with their career in tatters while the lawyer makes a bagful of money then disappears. These barristers rely on the fact that very few of them are admonished by the Bar Council. It is this lack of accountability that gives barristers the right to abuse their clients.
In my view, I believe that lawyers should be subjected to the same tests as doctors. For instance, I believe that all barristers and lawyers should be subjected to yearly revalidation and appraisals to be assessed by the SRA and Bar Council respectively. Dr Helen Bright laughed at the pitiful mere 16 hours of Continuous Professional Development that lawyers have to do. No wonder lawyers fail to read most documents.
In my view, Dame Janet Smith invented revalidation therefore the entire legal profession should be able to work by it. There is no reason whatsoever that the judges, solicitors and barristers should be unaccountable to the public. The General Teaching Council is considering checks on skills, there is no reason lawyers cannot have their skills such as reading and writing assessed. Afterall, they all offer a public service [ albeit quite badly in some cases] and the public should have a say in how they practice. Moreover, all the complaints against them should be held on databases so that they remain accessible by any court or authority.
Moreover, I am of the view that all medical regulatory cases should apply to lawyers as well. Doctors have to be subjected to to Bolton v Law Society. For this reason the widened view of misconduct [ R v GMC Ex Parte Pal] as applied to doctors has been sent for consideration by all regulatory bodies. In this case, misconduct no longer has to be " professional" in nature. It is only fair in love and war that lawyers live by the case law they created. It follows that any allegation that is capable of going to the integrity of the solicitor or barrister should be automatically investigated. Moreover, after the allegation passes the initial stage , a copy of the actual complaint should be sent to all courts, anyone the legal officer has dealings with and any members of the public they have represented in the past and the future. Comments should then be invited from all these people. Lawyers should not have any objection to this because members of their profession have drafted/agreed to the Fitness to Practise Rules 2004 of the General Medical Council.
Moreover, Collins J and Scott Baker LJ have both stated that there is "no prejudice" in this widened disclosure. They have also stated that every doctor should declare cleared complaints on their application forms. In my view, every barrister, solicitor and judge should declare every cleared complaint to the Courts and the claimant and defendant in every case they do. The subject matter of the complaint should be declared and this should not cause them any prejudice given the judgments by these two learned judges.
Solicitors, barristers and judges should have no objections to this widened disclosure. Indeed, every medical professional and member of the public should try it. Any complaint that is made against a solicitor or a barrister should be sent to all the courts they work in and to all solicitor firms and clients. It should then be posted on the internet for responses from the public. This is of course the essence of revalidation and appraisal. If their performance does not come up to scratch, their practicing licenses should be immediately suspended [as specified by Robert Francis QC above].
The first victims of complaints of this kind should be the General Medical Council's solicitors and barristers. Please forward any complaints or concerns about them and we will be happy to place this online on a up and coming website called iwantgreatlawyers.com :).
Conflict of Interest - Claimant in R v General Medical Council Ex Parte Pal.
Dedicated to
1. Lord Justice Scot Baker [retired]
2. Justice Sir Andrew Collins [ Still not a Lord Justice and we wonder why]
3. Mark Shaw QC Counsel for the GMC.
0 comments:
Post a Comment