Friday 30 December 2011

The end of 2011

Share |
Change is never easy. Sometimes when we reach the end of a year all we have to think about is what has gone wrong in that year. maybe a loved one has died, or personal circumstances have changed or work has suddenly become more pressurised. Growing older causes one to think about where one has reached on life's journey.


Really what we all need to do is look at what we have. Consider the good that has happened. Think about the joy one has given to others. Appreciate one's gifts and treasures. 


If one measures success in terms of material acquisitions then satisfaction is never guaranteed. There is always more that one "wants", more that one "needs".


If one however seeks contentment - as opposed to happiness - and recognises that life is the experience one is having as opposed to a dream or fantasy world somewhere else, then true happiness will follow.


We have had many changes at Emmersons this year. We have been disappointed and elated. We have welcomed 5 new members to the team and seen some colleagues depart. 


There are many challenges through Government policy eg the cutting of legal aid, but we are content, we are positive. The world is changing - not ending, and we are fully prepared and able to meet the challenges of 2012.


We wish you all a Happy and Prosperous New Year-and we hope you achieve contentment. 

Tuesday 15 November 2011

Richard Twyford joins Emmersons Solicitors

Share |
 
Emmersons Solicitors has welcomed a new recruit to its property law department, further strengthening the depth and breadth of its services, as North East Times reports.

Richard Twyford has recently been appointed at Emmersons Solicitors, and brings a wealth of experience in both Residential and Commercial property law to his new role.
Having originally practiced in the North East, before moving to the south of the country, Richard has returned to his roots and is thrilled to be joining Emmersons Newcastle and Sunderland offices.
He comments: “Emmersons was too good an opportunity to pass up and I am looking forward to it; I have a lot to get my teeth into and I want to make the most of it. The business has grown a lot over the last couple of years and it’s great to be coming in at this stage to try to take it on to the next level.”
As part of his training, Richard worked with his father, who is also a property lawyer and once worked for Linklaters, one of London’s most prestigious law firms. Since qualifying, Richard has dealt in all areas of Residential and Commercial property, such as the creation and renewal of leases for commercial property, planning law and the purchase and sale of businesses, ranging from pubs and shops to factories and niche companies – “all of which bring their own slightly unique challenges,” he says.
In addition, he has personal experience to draw upon when it comes to anticipating clients’ requirements as his wife owns her own business, which Richard helps out with.
He explains: “I understand what it takes to run a business from day to day so I can understand what our commercial clients need and what their priorities are.”
Speaking of her decision to appoint Richard, Jacqueline Emmerson, partner in Emmersons Solicitors, comments: “Richard has integrity, technical knowledge, extensive commercial property experience and the ability to communicate easily with clients.
“You don’t often get the breadth of Richard’s experience on the High Street. It means we can offer everything the bigger firms are offering but with a more personal service and at reasonable prices.”
 
This item first appeared in the November issue of ACCENT magazine

Will you make plans this Christmas?

Share |
As the year draws to a close and another one beckons, now is the perfect time to start looking to the future and ensuring your financial affairs are in order. For help, advice and reassurance, look no further than the Wills and Probate team at Emmersons Solicitors.

No one likes to dwell too much on death, old age and incapacity, but it’s not something that can be ignored completely – and far better to make provisions while you’re still mentally and physically able than to discount what the future may hold and suffer the consequences later.
The Wills and Probate team at Emmersons Solicitors is perfectly placed to lend a helping hand when it comes to organising either your own affairs or those of loved ones who are not longer capable.
Jacqueline Emmerson heads up the team with Helen Taylor, who is also a member of Solicitors for the Elderly, a specialist organisation for lawyers who provide legal advice to older and vulnerable people, their families and carers.
As well as wills and probate, the department covers legal matters such as Lasting Powers of Attorney, Court of Protection, care home planning, challenging NHS decisions on funding, and conveyancing for people who are forced to move home as a result of their situation.
Aside from being able to offer clients her extensive knowledge and experience, Helen also provides a sympathetic service and is conscious that clients may feel out of the depth when dealing with such legal matters.
She explains: “We often deal with people who are starting to lose mental capacity, as well as their families, and we take a very sympathetic approach. Normally clients know what a will is and what it’s used for, but often they don’t understand exactly what they can do with it and how flexible it can be. Many people want some guidance, and to have things explained to them in a way they can understand.”
Jacqueline Emmerson adds: “People always assume that their will will be easy to draft. However, matters are often more complicated than they think.
“We keep detailed questionnaires and notes on file which we don’t throw out and on several occasions we’ve been able to prevent challenges to estates as a result.
“The value added to our service is that we don’t ever just do what clients ask if we’re able to suggest a better way.”
The team regularly undertakes training from some of the leading experts in the field and the firm deals with both individuals and commercial clients.
 

Betrayal of the family!

Share |
 This was a recent Daily Mail headline in response to
the conclusions reached in the Family Justice Review.
There had been an indication earlier in the year
that the law may be changed in relation to contact
between children and their absent parents.
Groups representing such parents had hoped that
there would now be a presumption in favour of
shared care. However, the report concluded that
this was seen as unnecessary. Each case should be
dealt with on its own merits. Many specialist family
lawyers agree with this outcome. However, I am
not so sure. Time and time again I have witnessed
one parent assuming that they can control when the
other parent can see the children and under what
circumsatnces.
Clients often say, “I have asked and asked to have the
kids overnight but she/he won’t let me”. Or “I would
love to take the kids on holiday but he/she won’t
agree to it” Has anyone stopped to think what the
impact of all of this is upon the children? If there
was a presumption in favour of shared care, attitudes
such as these would surely have to change. It would
be for the resident parent to come up with valid
reasons as to why there shouldn’t be shared care. A
judge would still be able to make an order that was
suitable for the needs of the particular child.
This might get us away from situations like the
following:
Mr and Mrs Smith had a little girl aged 5. Mrs Smith
worked shifts and Mr Smith was able to drop Amy
off at school half of the week as he had organised
this with his employers. When neither parent was
available, Mr Smith’s mother would step in. She
and Amy loved their time together. Mr Smith was
a hands on father, he cooked, washed, ironed and he
took Amy to all of her swimming lessons.
However, Mrs Smith started to have an affair. She
told Mr Smith that he would have to leave their home
and that she had hired a child-minder to drop Amy
off at school. Mr Smith would now have to negotiate
with Mrs Smith as to when he could see Amy!
Whilst the judge made sure that Mr Smith would see
Amy for half of the Christmas and Easter holidays his
attitude towards daily contact made we wonder why
I do this job. He said, “Mr Smith will have to adhere to
the industry standard which is contact once a week
during the week for tea and every other weekend
from Friday to Sunday”. He then helpfully went on
to say that grandmother should not be involved in
the daily care of Amy as there was a perfectly good
child-minder available for this purpose.
There was no good reason for the judge to say this
other than a complete lack of imagination. How
insulting for Amy to be referred to as an industry
standard. A friend of mine whose parents were
divorced said that her journey to school with her
dad on a morning, even when she was fifteen, was
was one of the best bits of her day. It’s when they
did most of their chatting.
Fortunately for Mr Smith, the judge at the final
hearing was persuaded that Amy would benefit far
more from time spent with her Dad rather than the
child-minder!
If you are having difficulty seeing your child or
grandchild seek help from a solicitor. Your child has
a right to see you now!

Saturday 5 November 2011

Excellence Awards

Share |
We were Highly Commended at the recent Law Society Excellence Awards 2011 for Marketing and Business Development. We are to receive our award on 9 December 2011 from the Vice President of The Law Society at our offices in Sunderland.

This is recognition of all the hard work we have done to promote our IPP campaign. Heavily involved in that has been Lorna Elliott who is a barrister and a consultant to the firm who specialises in prison law.

However the rest of the team work just as hard to promote our services to potential clients. Indeed tomorrow some of the Private Client team are at Rainton Meadows Arena near Newbottle, Houghton le Spring to promote our private client services at the Bridal Gathering.

We were at a similar event last week at St James's Park, the home of football in Newcastle upon Tyne.

Saturday 29 October 2011

Licensing with Emmersons Solicitors

Share |

Emmersons Solicitors has launched a new Licensing advice and representation service to its portfolio of expertise.

If you need advice or even if you have only a query please contact richard.twyford@emmersons-solicitors.co.uk.

We have offices in Newcastle and Sunderland and access to offices in Middlesbrough. We will make visits to your premises to assist you through the planning process.

We have created a specific Facebook page.Which has all sorts of links on it and we hope that it will be come an active forum for those concerned about licensing.

Tuesday 11 October 2011

Working together for an amicable and just end

Share |
   

This article will appeare in Accent:


"Divorce and separation – words which are synonymous with stress and anxiety. But while the breakdown of any relationship is sure to be a painful experience, a new process, known as Collaborative Law, is helping families to reach mutually-acceptable agreements when dividing their assets and coming to decisions as to the care of their children, without involving the courts.

Jacqueline Emmerson, of Emmerson Solicitors, has been qualified for 22 years and is a member of the Law Society’s Family Law panel. Having been involved in countless divorce cases over the years, she has seen first-hand the benefits that Collaborative Law can bring to clients by allowing them to settle matters more amicably, while also giving them more of an input into the decisions which are reached.

“The idea is that people come away feeling that they’ve reached a compromise that’s workable for them,” says Jacqueline. “The added advantage is that they will also have legal advice throughout.”

Once both parties have appointed specialist Collaborative Lawyers, the process can begin. In the first instance, they would each sit down separately with their own solicitors to set out the issues they would like to discuss at their first four-way meeting. Jacqueline explains: “Often, the things that clients want to discuss at the first meeting are not what a solicitor would usually discuss, so the client is given more control straight away.”

The two solicitors would then meet alone to agree an agenda, which is sent to both parties before the first round-table meeting. At this point, clients must sign a contract which stipulates that if they are unable to agree on matters and decide to pursue the court route instead, they must each appoint a new solicitor. Not only does this act as an incentive for clients to persevere with the process when the going gets tough, but it also allows for a more open discussion, free from the fear that the information they share could be used against them at a later stage.

“With the Collaborative approach, clients generally come away feeling that they’ve had more of an influence over the process,” Jacqueline adds. “The outcome is governed by them rather than a judge.

“From a solicitor’s point of view Collaborative Law is a new experience; instead of us doing all the talking, we find ourselves listening more – my husband is delighted to hear it!” she laughs.


Contact Emmersons on (0191) 284 6989 (Newcastle) or (0191) 567 6667 (Sunderland). Alternatively, visit: www.emmersons-solicitors.co.uk "

Thursday 6 October 2011

Is Theresa May barking mad?

Share |
The cat at the centre of an Immigration stormhighlights the problem that exists generally in this country which is that expressing an opinion is an inalienable right-even if one doesn't know what one is talking about.

The Immigration Judge in the initial hearing referred to the cat. This was done in a jocular way and was not the main reason for allowing the Bolivian to stay.

The decision of the Judge was appealed and the appeal was lost because the Home Office failed to apply its own rules properly. That is the real reason he was allowed to stay. The Home Office got it wrong.

Yesterday I hearda story of a young man who was arrested two days running for allegedly setting fire to cars. He was arrested the first time on the basis that the Police thought he was the man. They had no evidence. They had no forensic evidence ie DNA, no cctv evidence, no eye witness evidence and no corroborative evidence. He did not confess. He was released on bail and arrested again after further cars were burned out. The reason for the arrest the second time was that he had been arrested before. There was still no evidence of any type that he was involved in the offences. He stayed in custody overnight before being released.

The idea that we dont in the UK in 21st Century need the human rights act is misplaced. The idea that foreigners, gay people, travellers and other minority groups such as the disabled are treated well and equally and have nothing to fear is misplaced.

The Home Secretary has shown by her own words that she is willing to make new law and change existing law based upon her own prejudice and misinformation. Even when one of her own cabinet collegues points out that she has got it wrong she still wont admit that she has got it wrong.

What those who support reform of the Human Rights Act dont get is that often it is not the criminal's right to a family life which is being considered but the right of children, wife or partner to continue to have a family life which has most probably arisen during a long period of time when Government and its agencies have failed to do timeously what they had the power to do. The real scandal is the failure of Government to apply its own rules and to introduce systems that work.

An example of this is the legal aid spend on benefits appeals. If the DWP got it wrong more often there would be less appeals. If there are less appeals there is less need for money to be spent on legal aid and on Tribunal time to hear the appeals. The benefits system is too complicated. Government has done nothing about this. The benefits system is too complicated. the DWP continue to get their calculations wrong. The Government answer-cut legal aid.

The Justice Committee report (available here) into Access to Justice discloses genuine concerns about legal aid and access to justice and the Government response. Have a look at page 13 in particular.

The Conservatives dont believe in a lot of things. They appear to me to be angry, selfish, small-minded people willing to sound off about the injustice of something or other when in fact all they want is to pay less tax. paying less tax is a great idea so long as we retain a civilised society. Its all "Me, Me, Me" with the Conservatives and all "What? What? What?" with Labour and all "Em! Em! Em!" with Lib Dems.

Along with the right to speak is the obligation to listen. Listening in silence usually produces decsions based upon contemplation.

Time to be quiet, Home Secretary.


Friday 23 September 2011

Now that the Summer is over...

Share |  ....it's time to get blogging again.

There seemed little point trying to blog during the summer-apart from looking after 3 children, running a business and trying to fit holidays into the work schedule- as there wasn't really very much happening...

Apart that is from the deteriorating world economy, the war in Libya, the inability to tidy the garden due to the rain and other less important matters such as my 50th birthday.

My birthday falls on 11 September. Each year I experience the reminder of  "9/11" when I am trying to enjoy the passing of another year.

This year 9/11 and the associated media hype annoyed me slightly. I have no problem with remembering those who have died in terrorist attacks or in war. Nor do I find it hard to empathise with the living victims and families of those harmed by terrorism or war. What I didn't like about "9/11" was the fact that that one incident attracted so much coverage and pomp and attention whereas other incidents appear to be forgotten. What about Madrid? What about Bali? What about those who have died or been injured in Pakistan or Afghanistan or Iraq? What about Birmingham or the Shankill Road fish shop bombing? What about Bloody Sunday (and every other bloody day)?

What about all the victims-when do we take time to remember them?

Apart from that there is a little bit of me that wonders at the USA and how it views itself and the rest of the world. I may have missed it but I cant recall the President of USA commenting on his countrymen's involvement with the funding of terrorism in the UK and Ireland. Plenty of condemnation of Gaddaffi-quite rightly-for all he has done. But did not Noraid fund IRA terrorism on the basis that it was a just cause? Explain that to the families of the Disappeared.

Emmersons Solicitors has been shortlisted for The Law Society's Excellence Awards in the Marketing and Business Development category. We can't afford to attend the expensive awards ceremony so we won't win the category, however it is very gratifying to be short-listed. We entered details of our IPP campaign led by Lorna Elliott who is a consultant to the firm and a qualified barrister.

Social media is a very important tool. We have embraced the technology and use every effort to promote our firm, our services and campaigns with which we agree. That is why we promote SSAFA Forces Help amongst others.

Unfortunately social media couldn't stop the killing of Troy Davis despite the lack of evidence. Is Georgia the sort of people we really need to be friends with? How about we spend some time thinking about those people all around the World who have been executed who are or  may be innocent? Maybe we should set a special day aside for that. What about September 11 2012?

Tuesday 9 August 2011

U.K. Riot Wombles hit the streets for clean up - BlogPost - The Washington Post

U.K. Riot Wombles hit the streets for clean up - BlogPost - The Washington Post

Share|

In the midst of the mayhem, the excuses, the intellectualisation of human conduct, the death of one man and injuries to countless others there has been good.

The Riot Wombles have taken to the streets-reclaimed the streets-and started to clean up. Has any such reaction to wanton destruction ever been seen before?

What should happen tonight?
Parents should keep their children indoors.
People should not go on the streets to spectate.
People should not spread rumour via social networking media.

Keep Calm and Carry On.

The Police should stop looters-not stand by and let it happen.
There should be a curfew.
The Police should use baton rounds (rubber bullets).

Our politicians have let us down. They have been on holiday and then done very little. No wonder Boris and Nick got such a poor reception in London.

What about Cameron? He says the Police will be tough (he too has just returned from holiday) and recalled Parliament.

Why has this happened?
Is it disaffected Youth or just plain, unadulterated wickedness?

Even if the rioters are caught, the Court system is in chaos.

Stay Safe!






Saturday 16 July 2011

Mediation and LIPs

Share |

EXTRACT FROM soundoffforjustice website of 14 July 2011:


Today the Justice Select Committee launched a report on the Operation of the Family Courts. It is a good report well researched and it presents a series of options to help family disputes. It presents the role of mediation but also the limits of mediation in solving civil cases. Sound off for Justice has included mediation as part of the £360 million in savings that we believe we can make from the civil legal aid budget.
We believe that mediation does have a role to play – the problem is where and when.
On launching the Chair of the Justice Select Committee, the Rt. Hon Sir Alan Beith MP said:
“Many family disputes could be better dealt with by mediation than in a court. However, there will still be cases which go to court and there will be significantly more litigants in person following changes to legal aid. Courts are going to have to make adjustments to cope with more people representing themselves in what are often emotionally charged cases.”
The issue of ‘litigants in person’ and individuals representing themselves in court has been raised frequently recently. It needs some serious thought and discussion. This is dangerous territory for Sound Off For Justice and solicitors to get into. The immediate accusation is that we are only protecting the vested interests of lawyers and legal professions. Alan Beith MP made this point very eloquently in his interview on the radio this morning.
We have demonstrated in full that along with not having the most expensive legal system in the world that this vested interest is not one of motivations.
We can confirm this again today by providing the facts. The salary of a fully trained legal aid lawyer who has worked for 15 years is 25k. Only 4% of lawyers practice legal aid, this number has been going down over the last 16 years. Over the same period government figures indicate that the legal aid budget has been reduced.
If we do have a vested interest it is in protecting access to justice for the most vulnerable in society and the idea of Magna Carta. We believe that David Cameron and the government must put the victims at the centre of all the cuts to civil legal aid.
The idea of mediation and self-representation does indeed look good on paper as an area for cost saving from the civil legal aid budget. The reality is very different. We need to think long and hard about the use of mediation and the increase of litigants in person as a way to cut the legal aid bill. It is not the silver bullet to cost cutting. The risk is that it is simply a way of cutting cost in the short term to build up huge costs for the taxpayer and problems for victims in the future.
The issue was raised in detail by MPs sitting on bill committee this week.
Peter Lodder Head of the Bar Council and Linda Lee, President of the Law Society confirmed to MPS that mediation is something that both the bar and the law society invest a lot in training. Speaking on Tuesday Peter Lodder told MPs:
“You may be surprised to hear that, generally speaking, we do not like litigation, and if you have got to court, something has gone wrong. So any attempt to avoid that outcome is taken, and mediation is a particularly useful way of doing it. But, as I said a short while ago in answer to one of your colleagues, mediation helps only those who really want to do it’.
We are all agreed that we can make savings in the legal aid budget. Sound Off For Justice proposals will save more than the government’s target.
The reality unfortunately is different for a few real life reasons. To understand this reality MPs will need to listen more closely to the victims of domestic abuse, clinical negligence or unfair dismissal in employment who have to go and face the perpetrator of the wrongdoing across a court room. There are limits to the role of mediators and the work that they can solutions they can solve.
Deborah Turner, Convenor, Family Mediation Council, made this point very clearly to MPs earlier this week “Family mediators are extremely concerned about these proposals, yes. We can see huge pressures on mediators, not least the expectations of clients who have not had the legal advice that is so vital, as was said earlier. The big risk is that they will come to mediation expecting the mediator to be able to solve all the problems, to tell them what to do, to write it all up. Mediators are not trained to do that, nor should they be”.
This year Carol Sorer and the Legal Aid Practitioners Group (LAPG) have provided testament to MPs of women who have been in physically abusive relationships for ten or fifteen years. It is legal aid that get these women out of these situations not mediation.
These women have spoken openly and honestly how they are terrified to step in the same room as their abuser. Representing themselves is some thing they could simply not do. Sound Off For Justice has countless case studies where one would question if mediation would work. This is the evidence that policymakers must listen to.
If the right thing is to be done it is important that government, policymakers, legal aid lawyers and victims have a joined up discussion. These changes to access to justice are a generational change and will affect every community across the UK. If the wrong decisions are made the cost to the taxpayer will cost more than the cuts will save. The social cost and the impact on communities and the most vulnerable is unaccountable.
Under the current proposals there is a serious risk that the courts could grind to a standstill as hundreds of thousands of people represent themselves in legal cases, senior judges have warned.
The Judiciary made their voices heard in an unprecedented criticism of government plans to reduce the legal aid budget by £350m. They have said that removing funding from whole areas of law including divorce cases, social welfare, debt and housing would lead to an “inevitable” decline in the quality of justice in courts in England and Wales.
Lord Judge, the Chair of the judges council, made it clear that he ‘anticipates a ‘huge increase’ in the number of unrepresented litigants in courts. In a scathing attack on proposals to slash legal aid, they have warned that a massive increase in “litigants in person” – ordinary people appearing in court without a lawyer – will slow down the court system and may cost more money down the line.
“The proposals would lead to a huge increase in the incidence of unrepresented litigants, with serious implications for the quality of justice… at a time when courts are having to cope in any event with closures, budgetary cut-backs and reductions in staff numbers,” the judges’ council, chaired by head of the judiciary, Lord Igor Judge, has said.
“There is a real question whether the cost savings arising from the proposed cutbacks in the scope of civil and family legal aid would be offset by the additional costs imposed on the system by dealing with the increase in litigants in person.”
Lady Hale in her speech at the Law Society in June added her concerns to the cuts in legal aid. The government has yet to respond to the criticism made by the Judges and magistrates who make the decisions in the cases.
In parliament yesterday, David Cameron said it was important the estimated 12,000 victims of the phone hacking are kept at the centre of the inquiries. We would agree with him and hope that he will support us in keeping the 725,000 victims of the civil cases at the centre of the current debate on legal aid.
Support the campaign and Sound Off For Justice