LAW & ITS PRACTICE POLICY

 

Summary and Aims of our policy.

​

Our aim is to completely restructure the current law system, so that it becomes an efficient, simple, low cost, and fair system of legal practice, that protects all people equally, and quickly resolves issues of any nature.

​

Current unresolved issues.

​

There are a number of fundamental issues with our current system of law.  Most of these derive from a very basic assumption that is built into the foundation of all of our law, an assumption we believe is fundamentally incorrect, and as a result, damaging to the practice of law.  This assumption is conflict of interest.  Most of our law, and much of the way we live our life, assumes conflict of interest, that two or more parties will most likely have interests which are different and are therefore in conflict with each other.  We believe the opposite is always true, there is never fundamental conflict of interest, instead there is always common interest.

​

The assumption of conflict of interest causes huge problems when it is the basis in any interaction or negotiation, it means that all parties start off with a fundamental distrust of each other as they believe they all want different things and it encourages the manipulation of agreements in order to secure favourable terms.  We wish to be clear that we do not wish to criticise solicitors or those who work in the legal professions, we understand they have sincere intentions and do their best to achieve a good outcome, we simply wish to describe clearly the problems with the way the legal system is set up, and propose solutions to them as follows:  

The assumption of conflict of interest dominates the way we practice law, such as in the processes of negotiating contracts, and resolving disputes, (which encompass the majority of law practice), these processes proceed in the same way as follows:  The first effect of the assumption is that each party will appoint their own solicitor, instead of one solicitor to represent both parties.  Let's call the parties b and c, and their solicitors B and C respectively.  b will instruct B and tell them what they want, c will instruct C and tell them what they want.  One of B and C will then make the first move and send a communication, which is usually a letter, lets say B writes to C.  Let us analyse what happens at this point.  The assumption is conflict of interest, so the first letter B writes is not necessary a letter proposing a final solution, because B is anticipating that C will want to manipulate things in their favour.  B therefore writes their letter with a proposal that favours b, trying to get the best deal for b, and assuming that there is going to be negotiation before reaching agreement, as B knows that C will try and negotiate better terms for c.  The extraordinary thing is that B and C, probably know almost exactly where agreement will be found, even before the first letter is sent, as they would have carried out these negotiations many times before, and will know the law.  But as explained neither B or C will open with the proposal of a final solution, they will propose terms that favour their client because conflict of interest is assumed.  The sending of the first letter by B, is likely to be detrimental to the negotiating process, as it is designed to be biased, (whereas a letter that proposes a fair final solution would be best to reach a conclusion).  C and c will be irritated by it to some degree as they will rightly feel it is not reasonable (even though they would have done the same thing if they wrote the first letter), this irritation maybe subconscious or conscious, but in either case it is detrimental to the process of reaching agreement. 

Letters from solicitors cost money, lots of it, as most solicitors charge a minimum of £300/hour in Britain.  It is unlikely that the first letter would cost less than £500 even in the simplest possible of cases, it can be far more than this and run into thousands, or even tens of thousands if considerable research has to be done before sending the letter.  C will then have to make a response, the cycle will repeat, and most likely another biased letter will be sent that does not propose a final solution.  These letters will bounce back and forth, costing b and c large sums of money, stress, and time, and I feel it is fair to describe this standard procedure in law as legal warfare, as both parties assume they are in conflict with each other and have to fight it out through their solicitors.  If the legal profession is not comfortable with the description of this as legal warfare then it would also have to abandon it's belief in conflict of interest, as conflict causes war. 

This standard process of carrying out law, as already described, causes irritation and stress, and it therefore reduces the chance of finding the amicable and cost effective solution, b and c clearly want.  The bouncing back and forth of letters can result in agreement if everything goes well, but there is increased chance of disagreement, and ultimately the parties either giving up and walking away, or escalating things to a court case.  Nearly all of this legal activity is avoidable waste, and can therefore be avoided, saving large sums of money and stress for all parties, see our Value Adding Work Policy.

​

If things do escalate to a court case, everything ramps up to a whole new level.  The relevant law has to be researched, and this involves many hours of solicitors and barristers wading through tens or hundreds of pages of Statutes.  Our body of statutes is vast, so vast that no one knows even a tiny proportion of it (this includes barristers, judges, and solicitors), and for this reason we have to pay solicitors hundreds of pounds an hour to wade through it all, find that which is relevant to the case, and try to make sense of it.  None of this works for or is helpful to the layman who the law is meant to guide, all it does is cause him huge extra time, stress, and cost.  If this is not time consuming and confusing enough, solicitors then have to research the huge body of case law, or common law; the historic judges rulings that are relevant to the case.  This exacerbates all the problems with the legal system to an even greater scale, the result of which is that it becomes almost impossible to carryout a court case without huge complexity, and cost.  All of this will only serve to make the job of judge and/or juries more difficult, and more likely to have an unreasonable outcome.

        When solicitors do then present evidence to the judge (or jury) this evidence is designed to be biased in favour of the party who is paying the solicitor, it is not designed to be an unbiased, fair, and full representation of the truth.  This is a necessity caused by setting up court hearings based on conflict of interest, and pitting two sides against each other.  There is huge irony and contradiction in this because court hearings are supposed to reveal the truth, so that a just decision can be reached, yet they are constructed in such a way that this never happens.  All the key participants act either for or against, no one has the role of presenting the unbiased truth.   The result of all the legal complication, and biased presentation of evidence, is that the decisions of Judges and juries are notoriously unpredictable, as I have been advised by every solicitor I have asked on this subject.  Our laws are far to complex and lengthy to be of any use in guiding people in their everyday life, they complicate legal procedures terribly, increase costs hugely, and render court rulings completely unpredictable.  Our view is that Judges and juries effectively become overwhelmed and confused by the extreme volume of biased evidence, law, and case law, that is presented to them, in hearings that can go on for months, and as a result it becomes very difficult to make a simple, just, and sensible judgement. 

          I personally experienced an insurance claim dispute that involved a sum of about half a £million for damage by fire to commercial property I own.  The relevant facts and the evidence was pretty straight forward, it could have easily be written on a few sides of A4.  However I was advised by my solicitor that it would cost a minimum of £100,000 to put the case through court, plus court fees, and in the worst case scenario if I lost, I could end up paying all the defendants legal fees, again a minimum of £100,000!  I simply could not afford the financial risk, and emotionally I felt it was more than I could reasonably cope with, I had to walk away from my insurance claim, and I did not receive one penny.  This is not exceptional at all, I would suggest it is more likely a norm.  I think it is fair to say anyone who has been in these types of processes, such as divorce, disputes, contract negotiation, etc, will be well aware of the extreme stress, costs, and time even the simplest of legal processes can involve. 

There is another fundamental issue created by high cost, it hugely favours the wealthy, and places anyone who is less than wealthy in a very disadvantaged position indeed.  This is because they cannot afford the costs of instructing solicitors, let alone a court case and the high financial risks associated with it, quite often resulting in them not seeking justice at all.  This effect is increased even more because the very wealthy will higher the top solicitors who can charge thousands of pounds an hour.  These solicitors can in some cases become legal mercenaries, and I have personally watched them in a number of hearings, bullying, manipulating, and intimidating witnesses, with judges doing nothing to stop them.  The environment of our legal system assumes conflict of interest, legal warfare, and aggressive interrogation, as the normal and correct way of negotiating and resolving dispute.  The supreme irony of our legal system is that the only conflict of interest that exists is not between the clients it represents, but in the way our legal system works.  This is because having two solicitors acting for two different clients, encourages more disagreement, and more fees for the solicitors.  So if solicitors do a good job they will be paid less, and if they do a bad job they will be paid more!  This is a very obvious and fundamental conflict of interest that we are certainly not the first to point out.  

I have talked with many people about conflict of interest, both in and outside of the legal profession, and I find that it is a widely held belief.  Our position is that the only place conflict of interest ever exists is in the minds of those who are unreasonable or short-sighted, and that in reality there is only common interest.  It appears to us that there is overwhelming evidence for this view and very briefly we cite some examples. 

          Firstly no one has ever come out better from conflict at any scale, all sides in any war make huge sacrifices of life and property, and all lesser conflicts will still have sacrifices on both sides of some nature, conflict therefore is not in anyone's interest, as no one ever benefits from it.  Any negotiation of any contract or agreement that gives one side favourable terms over the other, is less likely to succeed in the short and longer term, and ultimately it is not beneficial for anyone to do so, as it will most likely fail, cause difficulty, and possibly end in conflict.  Ultimately therefore it is always in everyone's interest to be reasonable, cooperative, honest, fair, respectful etc, as this gives all parties the best possibility of a good outcome, and thus there is always common interest in any situation.

The British Legal system's basis in conflict of interest simply creates conflict of interest, and as such we believe it is profoundly dysfunctional and fundamentally unjust as a result, and requires a full restructuring.

​

Summary of the issues with our current legal system:

​

• Assumption of conflict of interest causing distrust from the outset.

• Reduced chance of reaching agreement caused by the assumption of conflict of interest, and the stress and irritation it causes.

• Great cost of even simple legal processes.

• Fundamental favouring of the wealth, and penalising of the less than wealthy.

• The failure to bring issues to solicitors, on account of high costs, and therefore miscarriage of justice.

• The failure to bring issues to court, on account of high costs, and therefore miscarriage of justice.

• Extreme financial risks of concluding cases in court.

• Great stress.

• Lengthy periods of time for legal processes.

• Aggressive legal environment of bullying.

• Biased presentation of all evidence in court, often with the intent of manipulation, or causing confusion.

• Lengthy presentation of all evidence in court, often with the intent of manipulation, or causing confusion.

• Excessive length and complexity of law, confusing the process of negotiation and court hearings.

• Excessive length and complexity of case law, confusing the process of court hearings.

• Unpredictable final decisions by judges and juries, which quite often do not seem reasonable.

​​

Our Policy - How it resolves the issues and achieves the aims.

​​

​There are three simple ways of resolving all these issues (and we note that there are other legal systems across the world that currently embrace these ways to lesser of greater extents):

​​

1. Replace the assumption of conflict of interest with common interest, and legislate so that all parties can only appoint one solicitor jointly.

2. Combine the role of solicitor and judge.

3. Greatly reduce and simplify all legislation, and abandon all case law.  see our Supreme Law Policy.

​

Explanation:

​

If b and c by law have no choice but to appoint one solicitor to represent them, let's call them D, they can all sit in a room and b and c can present their position/goals/evidence to D.  D then has only one first step available to them, to immediately propose a final solution.  This solution has the maximum chance of immediate success, as there is no assumption of conflict of interest, only common interest, it is an immediate and fair proposal for a final solution, not a biased solution.  It is likely that only a bit of negotiation and tweaking of the agreement will be required to conclude the matter.  If there is not agreement after further talks, then D can rapidly rule and make a final legally binding decision in their role as Judge.  I say rapidly because D already has full knowledge of most or all aspects of the case, and can rapidly gather any further information required as D has immediate access to both b and c.  Given that the law also has been greatly simplified under our supreme law policy, it therefore quickly guides D's decision in a simple and clear manner.   We note that in our system of law, everyone will know exactly how it works and their rights, as all of this will be greatly simplified and educated in schools to everyone.  This means b, c, and D will all know this and be highly motivated to come to a resolution as quickly as possible otherwise they all know D will have to decide upon a solution for b and c.  This procedure will immediately resolve all the current issues with our law system mentioned above.

​

Costs will be equally shared in situations where there is no dispute, such as drawing up contracts (or shared in a proportion of b and c's choosing).  If and when things become contentious, from that point on the solicitor in their capacity of judge will apportion costs.  

​

There are further universal benefits of this system, it completely transforms the landscape of how law is practiced, and the ability people have to defend their rights.  Any one of any means could afford to take anyone or any organisation to court, without fear of being overwhelmed or legally bullied, by the greater legal resources of the defendant.  For example an employee of a large corporation could rapidly take it to court, and receive a judgement.  This judgment is much more liable to be fair, than in the current system.  There is no favouring of the wealthy in our legal system, and no bullying of any nature, people of any income can afford to defend themselves.

Another important benefit is that lesser crimes can be properly defended and enforced, rapidly and simply.  There maybe millions of small disputes across Britain every year where the victim has no viable recourse for justice.  Just think about how many instances of rudeness, small unpaid debts, petty thefts and crimes, etc, there are which never come before a solicitor or court, on account of it being far to costly, stressful, and slow to do so.

          In our system, the opposite would be true, if the victim has clear evidence of the crime, it would be dealt with almost immediately, and the perpetrator would pay all the costs of the case, and a fine for breaking the law.  Let's say that a shop sells an item to a customer for £5; the buyer receives the item, but ultimately fails to pay.  In the current system, no one would ever have any reasonable recourse for such a small amount, but in our system this would be dealt with immediately, and the buyer would pay shop, all the costs of the case, and a fine.  Exactly the same would happen if someone received a rude message or comment, say on social media (something that is strictly illegal under our supreme law).  There is almost zero recourse for this in our current legal system, and thousands or millions of rude and threatening messages are posted every day on our social media, with no viable and effective action being available to the victims of it.  In our system the opposite would be true and everyone in Britain will know exactly how the legal system works, how easy it is to defend their rights, and the consequences of breaking any law in any way.  Would anyone ever commit even petty crime anymore? 

​

In our system there is no biased presentation of evidence at all, this process simply does not exist.  Instead it is the solicitors job to seek out all the relevant facts from both the clients, and then come to an agreement or ruling on this basis.  This means there is a much higher probability of a reasonable, sensible, and just outcome.

​

All the complexity of the vast body of statutes will be simplified, and case law will become obsolete.  Hearings will be short, and the gathering and presentation of evidence will be unbiased on the part of solicitors and judges.  This means the chances of quick, and reasonable decisions is maximised while, making at the same time making huge savings in cost.

Everyone will know that if something is not resolved properly, even a small dispute, it is liable to end up in front of a judge.  The effect of this is to strongly motivate all people to resolve all issues quickly and amicably amongst themselves, without ever going to court.  This means instead of courts becoming flooded with petty cases (however there would be the resource to deal with all of these as the perpetrator pays the costs, not the tax payer), the opposite would happen, as the motivation is for these cases to be resolved amongst the parties themselves, and never come to court.  The environment of Britain would change from having to tolerate all manner of injustice throughout life, to everyone being highly motivated to follow the law, get on with each other, be polite and respectful, avoid all reason for conflict, and where it does occur, resolve it rapidly and amicably.

We wish to be clear how profound an effect our policies would have; the entirety of society would be protected at all times, and our country would radically change into a more sociable, safe, lawful environment.  This effect is further reinforced by many other policies we have, which create layer on layer of protection for everyone, see the supporting policies at the bottom.

Wellbeing and Cost benefits of this policy.

​

We estimate that the total costs of simple legal processes, that do not involve dispute, could be reduced to 5% to 20% of what it costs in the current system.  This is because a final solution is always proposed immediately, there can be no sending of letters back and forth between B and C.  In cases of dispute going through a full court process, we estimate the costs could be reduced to between 0.1% and 10% of the costs in the current system.  This is because D does not have to gather or hear evidence (from B and C who do not now exist), as D already has most or all of the facts before the case even begins, and they do not have to research the law, (or case law which does not exist), as they know the law already, on account of it being simple.  In many cases D might be able to rule immediately thus achieving the 0.1% of the costs of the current system.  The UK legal services market was worth £44bn in 2022, according to research by IRN Legal Reports, this policy therefore could provide £40bn every year of costs saving that could be redirected for increased standard of living and better public services.  With our Standardisation & Simplification Policy, this figure could be further reduced, and there would be many other cost benefits associated with a society that conducts such a legal system.

All of this simplification, understanding of common interest, and clear and simple law, maximises the chance of a predictable, fair, and just final outcome.  This is true in all cases; where there is agreement between b and c, or if a final decision from D is required to settle the matter.  In addition to the huge costs savings above, the time and stress to resolve cases can be greatly reduced, or eliminated, thus creating great benefits in wellbeing too.

​

Supporting policies.

​

Supreme Law Policy

Prison & Rehabilitation Policy

Standardisation & Simplification Policy

Education Policy

​

​

Witten by Marcus white © 2024, updated 30-4-2024.

​

​