Eric Baijal is Head of Litigation at Drever and Heddle, a firm operating from offices in Thurso, Kirkwall and Fraserburgh (and another location in early course…). Eric and his family relocated from Fife to Wick, Caithness. He offers his latest insight into life and law in the land of the dark skies.

As I write, I am coping with the idea of being back to work. Like many of you I had a decent amount of time off over Christmas. It always appears a sensible time of year to me to take time off given the fact that most other people will also be on holiday, and there should be nothing to worry about. Actually, I was astonished at the amount of e-mails received in my absence; clearly in some firms it is considered a badge of honour to try to make mischief when the other side are on holiday. Consider, are you the type of practitioner who would enrol non-time critical motions so that the opposition period expired between Christmas and New Year? Oh well, all fair in love and war and all that...

I came back to work a day early to deal with an Interim Hearing in relation to a commercial interdict in Inverness Sheriff Court. I was instructed by a company from where one of the Directors had suddenly resigned. It subsequently became apparent that he had been tendering against the company during his directorship, so my clients were seeking to enforce restrictive covenants in his service contracts. For the first time this year (unfortunately I do not expect it to be the last) we pitched up to find that the court was a Sheriff down. We had indicated that the argument would take most of the day, and that counsel was involved. Eventually the boredom of sitting around, in all probability to be sent home, got too much for both sides and a settlement was achieved. A happy ending in this case, but I wonder how many times this year there will be avoidable errors in allocation of judicial resources? It is very difficult to explain to clients how a system can possibly contrive to have them spending thousands of pounds on counsel and solicitors (as well as their own time) only to be sent away to do it all again a number of weeks in the future.

Following a very pleasant lunch (pleasant because counsel paid) I decided to wind my way North. After waiting behind a number of cars perfecting wheel spin techniques, and resisting the opportunity to pass my business card to the numerous people slipping on the pavement I was eventually advised by the police the road was closed. However, counsel having silently mocked me driving had to endure a worse fate at the hands of the railways: Having attempted to bus the passengers South to pick up a train at Aviemore, Scotrail had to come up with a Plan B when the road South was closed. That involved passengers being brought back to Inverness and sent home via Aberdeen, only for the train to be turned back to Inverness after an hour and a half waiting at Forres. Exactly the same happened the following day (except the train eventually did get to Aberdeen) and counsel finally got home thirty hours late (most readers are now thinking what’s the problem, at those rates he couldn’t complain if he got stuck for a week…)!

The New Year brings new challenges. The Legal Services Bill is receiving quite a bit of attention and at risk of losing room for humour, I am getting fed up of people pretending it won’t happen. For many high street firms alternative business structures may mean difficulties. However, I do not think it is realistic to attempt to turn the tide back. For better or worse our political masters seem committed to the idea of external investment in the law. It is now up to the profession to identify the opportunities that will arise. For example, there will be some areas of the law (particularly areas of litigation) which appear very difficult to package that will still represent good opportunities for the profession as we know it. I have just finished booking flights for a visit to Shetland. It will be interesting to see how many of the external players are interested in providing face to face cover from Wigtownshire to Wick. In all likelihood they will adopt some kind of contact centre model. The profession will have to convince the public that there is value to be gained in face to face local access to the law. My own feeling is that this will be an easier argument to have in relation to contentious matters as opposed to, for example, in residential conveyancing.

I suppose it comes down to the issue of whether we die or adapt? We are not owed a living just because we are solicitors; no matter how noble our aspirations are. We have to use our much claimed intelligence in the year ahead to start planning to be part of that future.

The folk at Drumsheugh Gardens also have many challenges in the year ahead. Can they demonstrate their relevance to the profession as a whole? In my experience some departments (like professional practice) have done a great job over the years. However, surely the society should now welcome the challenge in 2010 of demonstrating their relevance. Does it really help though to pay market research consultants, presumably large fees, to find out what we want? Should the society not be in touch enough to know what is happening in the real world? Can they demonstrate that empires being built will be of benefit to practitioners in the long run? Will the society stand up and be counted where there have to be disagreements with Holyrood? Surely for any elected company, it goes with the territory to have to take positions they may have reservations about if that is the mind of the electorate?

I can think of a few personal professional challenges too. More nights in my own bed (that is to do with less trips away rather than being locked out of the house), more time with the family etc. We need to develop our “lowland” client base further and that will take time. Answers on a postcard for ideas on managing a team that is geographically spread out? It would also be useful to improve my golf for the long summer of embarrassment ahead…

Hope you survived the freeze.

Eric