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.

It is still well under 10 years since I started my traineeship. We have our first 2010 trainee staring in a few weeks time. I have been reflecting this morning on the huge change in the profession’s landscape even since I started. It strikes me that there are far fewer people with a smile on their face. It might be quite convincingly argued that people have nothing to smile about given the current recession, economic pressures on the profession and general gloomy despondency about life. However, I do think it would be really sad if new entrants to the profession got sucked into the slough of despond so quickly.

Clearly smiley enthusiastic new entrants are an irritation to some more jaded members of the profession, but perhaps if we were to embrace their ideas and different outlook it would help us to adapt in a changing business world.

I think the least favourite part of my job is acting as client relations partner. It seemed a good idea at the time when the other alternative was to be the Money Laundering Reporting Officer! Thankfully I do not have many complaints to deal with in a numeric sense but the attitude of some complainers still takes getting used to. Being a commercial litigator dealing with disaffected residential property or Executry clients is a bit different from my normal work. However, most are perfectly pleasant and appreciate someone trying to resolve their difficulties (which usually in our experience relate to articulating more clearly what a fee earner has been trying to tell them or failing to tell them).

You do though get the odd one who is demanding of huge compensation because their email has not been responded to within the hour. My greatest frustration with complaints procedure is that a year and a half in, the Law Society still won’t address anything to me, as client relations partner. I have had a wonderful exchange of correspondence over the last few months with the client regulation department pointing out more times than I care to remember that I am now the client relations partner and correspondence should not be sent to other offices or other partners. I heard just this morning that the reason for the continual failure to address the letters correctly was due to computer system error that has now been corrected… lets hope SGM papers go to the right place.

I wonder if anybody else is getting fed up of speaking about alternative business structures. I know that it is very important and the profession does have to get it right. Perhaps we all need something to moan about.

In my view, however, I still think it is highly unlikely (given the pressure from 'Which' and the consumer groups) that the Scottish government will make any substantive changes to the bill. To that extent I agree that we probably have to make the best of what we have.

From an access to justice point of view, in relation to rural communities, I can see real difficulties with ABS. However, from a purely commercial and cynical point of view I have no doubt that in these rural areas it will be a question of survival of the fittest and opportunities will exist for firms that adapt to the changes.

I think it is a quite separate debate to ask questions about whether the Law Society can continue in a regulation and representation role post the reforms.

To my mind I think it is quite a valid challenge to make, to ask the society to justify why (if desired) another organisation or even private enterprise could not provide representation services in a much more streamlined and cost-effective way for its members. We have a situation at the moment where the Law Society hierarchy are being accused of spinning the PR to suit their own agenda. I think this just illustrates the potential conflict of interest they now find themselves in. The profession needs a strong regulator. I have seen a number of documents from the Law Society which purport to argue the benefits of the Law Society being involved in representation. I am not anti-Drumsheugh per se, and have said in previous blogs that there are departments that give us great benefits and some able people in the organisation.

It would be good if the debate focused away from a slagging match (because it seems to me it has got personal) whether the main protagonists like it or not. I want to hear what the Law Society has to say about why they should be the representative body.

I am interlining this paragraph at the last minute because I have just been on the referendum website. I think, trying to be objective, that the questions posed are unfair. The first question asks about support for ABS on the basis of various assumptions. To my mind that misses the point of the opposite view; that is impossible for these assumptions to be shown to be correct. I imagine many of the Law Agents could say yes to Question 1, but in actual fact they do not support ABS because they say the assumptions made are unfeasible.

Like many litigators I read the Thomson review this month. It will certainly separate the wheat from the chaff if “pleaders” (does nobody else agree this is a really clumsy and ugly name for those practising advocacy in the Court of Session?) have to effectively be reaccredited every so often. I think however, apart from the few exceptional cases (because there are some very gifted solicitor advocates) in most cases solicitor advocates will experience the danger of being treated differently from their peers at the independent referral bar. In most cases solicitor advocates do not have the same time (they have internal firm pressures, clients and management targets) to devote to a single case that counsel have. If solicitor advocates are to succeed perhaps they need to change the way they work (as some have) so that instead of selling themselves as a more economic option than counsel, they are brought in by their particular firm on the same basis as counsel would be, with another solicitor dealing with the agent client relationship on a practical day-to-day basis, rather than simply when someone has to stand in the well of the court.

I do agree though that particular stables are getting very effective at marketing the independent bar. I don’t instruct terra firma chambers on a regular basis but they received, I felt, very good publicity for the return of Jim Wallace and there is no doubt that particular counsel are thinking far more carefully about the need to market their services.


Eric