Having watched nearly all inquiry witnesses over the last couple of years I have a broad sense of the failings within the PO. I have also read the Justice Fraser judgement. From being annoyed, aghast, amused and sometimes frankly ashamed of the “goings on” it is most welcome to see the headline proposals from the IoD.
The idea of keeping a close eye on "legal risk" can be welcomed, but in the PO's case, such supervision as there was, and as there would be in the future, depends on what has turned out to be aberrant (but possibly lawful) behaviour by the lawyers who the "legal risk" people would be supervising. They were being assured that some of the biggest names in the business were saying that all was well, the judge had gone off the rails and could be removed, problems could be hidden away under the guise of privilege etc, etc. How is a legal risk committee of the board going to deal with that?
What needs to change is the way lawyers understand the difference between right and wrong and how they deal with adversarial litigation in consequence, and that begins and ends with a positive duty to maintain the interests of justice, dismissed so readily by the luminaries whose evidence we heard. Without that, all of the board risk committees in the world won't help.
Many thanks Richard. Much in this short post for how SRA conducts its inquiries I think and as to the objectiveness of its legal advice (in house and from the private profession)
Well done on your contribution Richard. How many other Boards in private/public/charity/village cricket club sectors are equally bad, if we but knew it ?
Having watched nearly all inquiry witnesses over the last couple of years I have a broad sense of the failings within the PO. I have also read the Justice Fraser judgement. From being annoyed, aghast, amused and sometimes frankly ashamed of the “goings on” it is most welcome to see the headline proposals from the IoD.
The idea of keeping a close eye on "legal risk" can be welcomed, but in the PO's case, such supervision as there was, and as there would be in the future, depends on what has turned out to be aberrant (but possibly lawful) behaviour by the lawyers who the "legal risk" people would be supervising. They were being assured that some of the biggest names in the business were saying that all was well, the judge had gone off the rails and could be removed, problems could be hidden away under the guise of privilege etc, etc. How is a legal risk committee of the board going to deal with that?
What needs to change is the way lawyers understand the difference between right and wrong and how they deal with adversarial litigation in consequence, and that begins and ends with a positive duty to maintain the interests of justice, dismissed so readily by the luminaries whose evidence we heard. Without that, all of the board risk committees in the world won't help.
Many thanks Richard. Much in this short post for how SRA conducts its inquiries I think and as to the objectiveness of its legal advice (in house and from the private profession)
Well done on your contribution Richard. How many other Boards in private/public/charity/village cricket club sectors are equally bad, if we but knew it ?