Nevada Commission on Ethics’ Post

📢 Exposed: The Shocking Failures of UK Legal Regulators - Why Your Justice Is at Risk! 🔍 Are you aware of the critical shortcomings within the UK's legal regulatory framework? Institutions like the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO), and the Legal Ombudsman are meant to safeguard the public interest and uphold justice. However, these bodies are increasingly falling short in their duties, leading to significant public mistrust and failed justice. 📄 In my latest article, I delve into the multifaceted reasons behind these failures: - Mismanagement and Overload: Unrealistic timelines and excessive caseloads compromise the quality of investigations. - Structural and Funding Conflicts: Inherent conflicts of interest due to industry funding undermine impartiality and effectiveness. - Reluctance to Take Direct Action: Complainants are often directed to seek independent legal advice, placing undue burdens on individuals. - Bureaucratic and Cultural Barriers: Internal resistance to change and a toxic work environment stifle innovation and improvement. 🔗 Discover how these issues erode public trust and what comprehensive reforms are necessary to restore integrity and effectiveness in the UK's legal system. 📢 It's time for a systemic change to ensure justice for all. Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evMDmZqS #UKLegalSystem #LegalRegulators #JusticeReform #LegalMisconduct #ProfessionalNegligence #SRA #ICO #LegalOmbudsman #PublicTrust #LegalAccountability #JusticeForAll

With Labour winning the majority vote, legal professionals are anticipating several changes in the industry. Here's what legal professionals had to say following our recent poll and what they think the future holds: 📜 Significant Regulatory Changes (67%): Expect major overhauls in regulations that will impact various sectors. ⚖️ Emphasis on Social Justice (33%): A stronger focus on social justice issues, potentially leading to new legal precedents and cases. 💼 More Focus on Corporate Law (0%): Surprisingly, corporate law might not see as much of a shift. 📈 Increased Workload (0%): Interestingly, an increased workload is not a primary concern among respondents. What are your thoughts on these changes? How do you think the legal landscape will evolve? #LegalSector #GeneralElection #LabourMajority #RegulatoryChanges #SocialJustice #LegalProfessionals

Do you want to learn the legal basics for a small business? Do you want to learn about court processes or what you need to write your Will? For these and MANY MORE topics, check out the Victorian Law Week program, hosted by the Victoria Law Foundation/ https://lnkd.in/g8AfQzG6

President Biden's proposal to reform the Supreme Court (https://lnkd.in/gdsdqF-m) is both timely and interesting. He understandably focuses on the need for an enforceable code of ethics for the Supreme Court and criticizes the Court for its recent ruling on presidential immunity. But ultimately his proposals -- especially the plan to eliminate life tenure for Supreme Court justices in favor of staggered 18-year appointments -- would require Constitutional Amendments and are likely non-starters in the current legislative environment. Indeed, the President's proposals could be called more political than practical in nature. For an alternative (and, I believe, more workable) vision of Supreme Court reform, please check out my Law360 article from September 2020 (https://lnkd.in/g6u5MiPr), which offers three practical solutions for how the Supreme Court can be made less politicized and more accountable without the need for constitutional amendments. In brief, the proposals are (a) a merit selection panel for all federal court appointments, including SCOTUS, (b) a mechanism to fill temporary vacancies on SCOTUS (including from illnesses and recusals) through designation assignments, and (c) transforming SCOTUS to sit and hear cases in panels of 7 Justices out of a total of 13 on the Court at any time. I would welcome thoughts on these proposals and how they compare to the President's plan.

A suspect interviewed under caution has the right to remain silent, but will a judgment by the Court of Appeal erode this right in certain instances? In his latest insight, Richard Ellis explores the common law privilege against #selfincrimination, how the law qualifies the right to silence, and why the R v Black decision could be concerning for defence practitioners involved in large, complex #investigations 💡 Read the insight here 👇

Yesterday, I mentioned 'The Judge Over Your Shoulder', a guide to help civil servants when advising ministers and government on decision making, so today I thought I would provide the link to it. It's very much focussed on the legal aspects - this isn't a self-help book for the indecisive. It's also not a book about data protection. Nevertheless, the need to make legally robust and defensible decisions isn't limited to government, so while all the content won't be relevant to everyone, I recommend taking a look. Even if you only get as far as the public equality duty checklist at the start, I think it's well worth reading as an example of how decisions involving the law should be made. https://lnkd.in/eXzkdu_n

Sharing is Caring Regulation Edition Monday, October 21, 2024 [TIME LIMIT FOR PARTIES NOT ADDRESSED BY A STATE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION] As outlined in Supreme Court Circular No. 2 of 1991 concerning the Implementation Guidelines for several provisions in Law No. 5 of 1986 on State Administrative Courts, Section V, Article 55: For individuals not directly addressed by a State Administrative Decision but who feel that their interests are harmed by it, the time limit referred to in Article 55 is calculated on a case-by-case basis, starting from the moment they feel their interests have been harmed and become aware of the existence of the Decision. Source: Supreme Court Circular No. 2 of 1991 concerning the Implementation Guidelines for several provisions in Law No. 5 of 1986. Best regards, Xavier Nugraha, S.H. #LegalInsight #AdministrativeLaw #SupremeCourtGuidelines #ProfessionalLaw #LegalPractice #StateAdministration #LawProfessors #LegalEducation #LegalUpdates #LawAndPolicy #CircularNo2Of1991 #LegalProfession #LinkedInLearning #LegalKnowledgeSharing

Most of the media coverage will focus on the NC Constitutional issue in the case dealing with the "fruits of labor" clause (which I also did), but I read this case because it also dealt with an issue under NC's Emergency Management Act "EMA" (N.C.G.S. Chapter 166A). The issue is what compensation is required by the Governor for services or taking or using property during a state of emergency for emergency management purposes. It was a very illustrative and instructive opinion by the Court of Appeals on the EMA issue. See pages 11-16 of the opinion. #emergencymanagement #legal #emlawyer #COVID19 https://lnkd.in/eU3M-mAV

#lawyerhumour (lawyers claiming excessive costs in a case in which they complain about excessive costs) "In respect of costs and expenses, the applicant company claimed GBP 65,745.10 plus interest up to 15 February 2023. This figure includes counsels’ fees of GBP 32,300, and in support of this claim it has submitted counsels’ fee notes, none of which has been itemised. The applicant claimed a further GBP 140,000 in respect of “estimated future costs”, based on the cost of leading and junior counsel appearing at a hearing." Except that it's not a joke, they asked the UK government (ie me, the tax payer) to cough up GBP172,000 in partly unspecified costs, in a case in which they complained about #excessive #costs #humanrightscourthumour "regard being had to the documents in its possession and the above criteria, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum of 15,000 euros" (translation: ha ha you guys, now seriously, you're kidding, right? here, you can have EUR15,000, that seems reasonable given that we don't think you've spent much time filling in our application form and responding via email to the few questions we had) #medialawyershumour (from the case comment author on #Inforrm) "The case is, nevertheless, a welcome conversion on the part of Associated Newspapers to the principle that independent judges should be able to review legislative decisions against human rights standards." Associated Newspapers Limited v. the United Kingdom, https://lnkd.in/eX_7GFEp Inforrm comment: https://lnkd.in/eS5cSGjp

Can lawyers and judges do better? The Court of Protection seems to rely on members of the public to spot the errors in Transparency Orders & to ask for changes. This does not seem an efficient or sensible use of public funds, and it places the burden of open justice on the shoulders of members of the public who are not trained in law, and do not necessarily have the knowledge or skills – or confidence – to carry out this task.  Correcting erroneous Transparency Orders also involves quite a lot of court time and imposes an unnecessary burden on the public purse. My new blog post documents a recent experience. https://lnkd.in/eta7bgKj