Ice Bucket Challenge

In response to the lazy journalists and the "too-cool-for-school" contrary types.

So, what does it mean?

This is a total re-write. I admit it.  

It's a re-write because the first draft was me saying, "See!  The CBA wouldn't agree something this dangerous without a proper consultation!  Why, the CBA is mid-consultation right now! Surely that wouldn't be superceded!"         It's actually the fifth re-write.

You see why I needed the re-write?

The CBA today announced that the direct action was over for the Bar because it had won us a reprieve until the various reports and reviews are complete.  I object.

As this god-awful government is so keen on saying: "Let me be clear."

I object to the government coming to the Bar (that's the Circuit leaders and not just the CBA) and saying that they want to make a deal but we must decide by the morning.  Not only that but we must not let those deciding see the paperwork upon which the deal is being made.  Not only that but we must not allow those making the decision to consult (at all) with those whom they represent.

I also object either to the mis-reporting by all sides or to the incorrect information given to those making the decisions last night.  Either the Law Society or CLSA were represented and secured their own deal regarding postponement, in which case the decision-makers were not told that last night.  Or solicitors were unrepresented in the negotiation and deal-making, in which case the token "victories" for them were secured by the Bar and so TLS and MoJ are not quite being clear and honest in their releases today.

Anyone will tell you: a limited time offer (much like credit for guilty pleas under EGP) is rarely worth the trade for proper consideration and scrutiny.

As for the deal itself, well, I object again.

I object that it's a crap deal when we could have done better; the MoJ were on the ropes.

I object that it probably cannot be undone now as the Bar will have lost credibility and its mouthpiece. 

I object that a deal is done when there is an active consultation as to whether further action ought to take place and where the result is not yet known.

I object to the disregard for due process that applied to this deal-making.

Perhaps it will render me less popular than those of my Learned Friends who are "outraged" but I also object to the disingenuous behaviour of a sizeable number of solicitors and barristers, reacting to the news.

I expected to see some vile drop of poison such as that coming from a certain panto-villain solicitor of this parish but to see an outright cry of "traitors" against the Bar is simply not right.

Firstly, "the Bar" did not blame "solicitors" for Des Hudson.  Many, in fact, called for his resignation in the same way that solicitors did.  A whole circuit said no to this deal, in no small part because of the lack of security for solicitors in what was being offered.

Next, "the Bar" has not left solicitors out to dry any more than solicitors did by refusing to start work at the new contract rates on 20th March.  After all, we all said no cuts and no deals.  That was a deal without speaking.  It was utter acquiessence and it was done because of the number of vipers in the grass.  People were fearful of what would happen and who would take what work etc.  That was totally understandable, but it was utterly unhelpful.  

Finally, it seems that blaming "the Bar" would be a good way to justify taking the "we're just going to get on with it" approach adopted so theatrically by a well-known solicitor.  Instead, solicitors could take a better lesson than not to trust the CBA; they could take the lesson that fighting hard and taking big hits rather than token hits is what forces the Dark Lord to come to the table.  

Stop working for these derisory cut fees.  Stop it now.  All of you.  See how long the courts cope.  It'll be much less time than you think.

Stop waiting to see the direction of the wind and have that vote on the new contracts.  Express your intention not to sign-up to either. 

Make it clear, not only to Grayling and his puppeteers at the MoJ but also to his successor, that you will stand and fight and that, if you could stop attacking them on Twitter for five minutes, you'd see that a sizeable majority of the Bar stands by you too.

The tragedy of the Bar's move was not that it "shafted" anyone.  It was that it was the wrong deal, after the wrong aim was identified.  It was done at the wrong time, in the wrong way.

That may not be as populist as saying "I'm outraged" and "not in my name" or even "sack the CBA leaders", but it is hopefully a practical analysis of where we are, where we are going and what we must learn.

On their terms (or "Chatham House rule and the Lord Chancellor's tea party")

I have not given this matter extensive thought this afternoon, but the following occurred to me whilst I sat pondering futility.  

The meeting that TLS has been so courageously and skillfully arranged with Lord Voldemort for the benefit of us all, is to be held under the Chatham House rule. This worries me. 

On the Northern Circuit, at our first videolink meeting on Legal Aid last year (which seems like an eternity ago!), we expressly forbade the Leader of the Circuit from taking part in any further meetings (at that stage) under CHR. 

The reason for this was that it was felt that Chatham House rule is not beneficial to the transparency of process that we are due in this case.

Chatham House itself describes the rule thusly:
"It allows people to speak as individuals, and to express views that may not be those of their organizations, and therefore it encourages free discussion. People usually feel more relaxed if they don't have to worry about their reputation or the implications if they are publicly quoted."

So, it allows the representative of TLS (despite possibly being one of those in whom there was a vote of no-confidence and who still will not resign) to voice his/her own views and not to properly represent the views of TLS's members. This is precisely what has been complained of.

What is more, the others present will not be able to point the finger at such an offending person without breaching the rule.

Accordingly, whilst Grayling is running from another clash with the Bar, he thinks the leadership of TLS are still prepared to box themselves into a corner in this manner.

Did those organisations attending actually agree to CHR? Or did it simply pass into the meeting's details without query? Or, more worryingly, was it a condition upon the meeting happening at all?

Any thoughts? Should be Grayling be allowed these Special Measures? Will it improve the quality of anybody's "evidence"? Or is it just a way of putting up a screen to spare blushes?

UPDATE:
The MoJ has just sent an angry reply to The Criminal Bar Association for calling it a cancellation.  But, this just raises another question:  Why is the MoJ arranging a Chatham House rule meeting with TLS and solicitors' groups but not inviting the CBA to the party on the same date?