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 will try and manipulate an agreement that is favourable to them. This assumption dominates the way we practice law, consider the processes of negotiating contracts, and resolving disputes, (which encompass the majority of law practice), these processes proceed in the same way, as described in the next paragraph. We wish to be clear that we do not wish to criticise solicitors or the legal system, 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, as follows:

The first effect of the assumption of conflict of interest 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. Lets analyse the 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. 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, which is designed to be biased, is likely to be detrimental compared with a letter that proposes a final solution. C and c will be irritated by it 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. The standard process, as already described, causes irritation and stress, and it therefore reduces the chance of finding an amicable solution. The bouncing back and forth of letters can result in agreement if everything goes well, but there is increased chance of disagreement, and 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. If this is not time consuming and confusing enough, they then have to research the huge body of case law, or common law; past judges rulings that are relevant to the case. It becomes almost impossible to carryout a court case without huge complexity, and cost. 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 massively favours the wealthy, and places anyone who is less than wealthy in a very disadvantaged position indeed, as they cannot afford the costs, and ultimately the high financial risks of a court case, 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. 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 causes distrust from the outset.
Fundamental favouring of the wealth, and penalising of the less than wealthy.
Great cost of even simple legal processes.
Great stress.
Time delay.
Reduced chance of reaching agreement caused by the assumption of conflict of interest, and the stress and irritation it causes.
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.
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:

Abandon the assumption of conflict of interest, and legislate so that all parties can only appoint one solicitor.
Combine the role of solicitor and judge.
Greatly reduce and simplify all legislation, and abandon all case law. see our Supreme Law Policy.

Explanation:

If b and c 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, and it is a final fair 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 all aspects of the case, and the law, (which has been greatly simplified), and therefore guides their decision in a simple and clear manner. 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. If and when things become contentious, from that point on the solicitor in their capacity of judge will award costs. When solicitors are presented with a dispute, it is Supreme Law that the dispute is fully resolved, either by mutual agreement between b and c, or a ruling by D.

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.

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.

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. Lets say that you sell a second hand item you own to a person on your street for £5. The buyer takes the item, but ultimately fails to pay you. 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 you, all the costs of the case, and a fine. Exactly the same would happen if someone received a rude message or comment (something that is strictly illegal under our supreme law), say on social media (where millions of them are posted every day). 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?

Another benefit is that 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. The happy irony here is that although it might seem that courts would become flooded with petty cases (there would be the resource to deal with all of these as the perpetrator pays the costs), the trend would be 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 completely 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 10% to 20% of what it costs in the current system. In cases of dispute going through a full court process, we estimate the costs could be further reduced to as low as 1% or less of the costs in the current system. This is because final solution is always proposed, there can be no sending of letters back and forth between B and C. Additionally D does not have to gather or hear evidence (from B and C who do not now exist), as D already has all the facts, 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. 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,

All of this simplification, assumption of common ground, 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