Alan Paterson, Lawyers and the Public Good: Democracy in Action? (The Hamlyn Lectures), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012, 218 pp, pb £17.99.
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.2012.00941.x |
| Author | Michael Blackwell |
| Date | 01 March 2013 |
| Published date | 01 March 2013 |
REVIEWS
Alan Paterson,Lawyers and the Public Good: Democracy in Action? (The
Hamlyn Lectures), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012, 218 pp, pb
£17.99.
In these lectures, Professor Alan Paterson critiques three aspects of the legal
system – lawyers, access to justice, and the judiciary. As an eminent Scottish
jurist, Paterson provides an interesting comparison of the Scottish and English
legal systems. Especially in relation to the House of Lords and (new) Supreme
Court, the lectures also provide excellent new empirical information as to how
the legal system operates. In doing so, the book contributes to our understanding
of the judiciary, which was identified by Hazel Genn in the Hamlyn lectures two
years previously as an ‘astonishing void in our understanding of the civil justice
system’.
In the first lecture Paterson discusses the challenges that face the legal profes-
sions today and how they have changed over the last 30 years, resulting in
the concept of professionalism being redefined. He argues that the model of
professionalism has been rebalanced from one based on the benefits of status,
reasonable rewards, restricted competition and autonomy to one more orien-
tated towards the obligations of expertise, access, service and public protection
(15). Much of this is sensible and insightful. However, it is perhaps overly
focused on lawyers in private practice and so fails to consider those employed ‘in
house’ and by government.
Paterson notes how 70 per cent of British solicitors claim to be specialists and
anticipates that law societies will develop schemes to accredit such specialisms
(35). Yet he overlooks that such accreditation is often obtained from external
bodies – such as the Chartered Institute of Tax and Society of Trust and Estate
Practitioners – which also provide solicitors with opportunities for networking
with potential clients (who may also be members), so may be preferable to a
model based on accreditation by the law societies.
Unfortunately, Paterson assumes that some of the practises that apply in
Scotland are mirrored in England. Thus he seeks to distinguish lawyers from
plumbers since ‘lawyers are required to carry not only indemnity insurance but
also to underwrite the honesty of their competitors in the shape of client
guarantee and security funds’ (13). Whilst the Scottish Solicitors’ Guarantee
Fund exists for these purposes, the (English) Solicitors Indemnity Fund ceased
offering protection in August 2000. Now English solicitors are only required to
take out insurance – and generally the minimum cover is identical to that
required by the Chartered Institute of Plumbing and Heating Engineering Code
of Professional Standards.
Also, some of Paterson’s use of statistics is potentially misleading. To assess
gender inequality in solicitors’ partnerships Paterson considers the percentage of
all women in private practice who are partners. Contrasting this to the same
statistic for men Paterson concludes that the position has worsened in the last 20
bs_bs_banner
© 2013 The Authors. The Modern Law Review © 2013 The Modern Law Review Limited. (2013) 76(2) MLR 419–428
Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA
To continue reading
Request your trial