The Lord President, Scotland's most senior judge, has refused to allow an English barrister to address a Scottish court. And has admitted that there wouldn't have been a problem had she come from any other EU country.
Lord Gill wouldn't hear Philippa Whipple QC, a leading tax silk, who had been representing a client in a VAT tribunal that had started in London. The tribunal moved itself to Edinburgh, at which point Lord Gill told Whipple that she would have to bow out and that her client would need to appoint a Scottish lawyer. However if the case ends up in the Supreme Court in London Whipple can have her front row seat back.
The English and Welsh Bar is up in arms. There's the obvious iniquity of a client being unable to retain its first choice of counsel in a complex case. But Lord Gill said that lawyers in other parts of the EU would have rights of audience in Scotland. So, had Whipple been Latvian or Dutch she would have been heard. But Gill refused to use his discretion to hear an English barrister - presumably because the Secretary of State for Scotland could legislate for it if he wished but quite frankly anyone remotely associated with Wustmunstur can go f*ck themselves*.
 |
Scottish jobs for Scottish lawyers |
Other leading QCs approached by RollOnFriday confirmed that the same thing had happened to them. John Bowers QC said he has faced this problem on several equal pay cases, and that he "would urge the authorities to grant reciprocal rights, particularly in areas where the law is effectively the same both north and south of the border".
This blatant piece of legal protectionism clearly only applies to the auld enemy. And Scottish lawyers are generally allowed to be heard before English courts with little fuss, so this is the profession's very own West Lothian question.
Sources tell RollOnFriday that the Bar Council has spoken to the Faculty of Advocates to try and resolve this inequality, but has been told where to go. Neither organisation would comment.
*Comment made up by RollOnFriday obviously.
Category
Comments
7
3
Thus, it isn't as unfair as it may seem. English lawyers generally aren't well-versed in Scots law, whereas Scots lawyers are usually well- versed in English law.
6
4
9
1
7
5
8
4
But, I also found that many public bodies and Scottish quangos/regulators only use independent Scottish law firms now for litigation advice, i.e. they avoid the ones that merged with English firms.
Maybe this is because the ones with an English side have higher fees, but seems more likely to be protectionism/nationalism.
Could English lawyers launch a massive group action for discrimination?
4
7
11
2
You can't join the solititor's union (law society) unless you jumped through the academic hoops and got the approval of an established solicitor (the TC)
and woe betide you try to be a solicitor advocate or be a direct access wig jockey
5
2
Calls into question Lord Gill's suitability, unless it is a question of suitability to run a narrowly nationalistic legal system of course in which case fire away. Given that VAT is an EU tax there can be no possible justification for his position (had we been talking about specifically Scots law it might have been different)
7
3
5
5
Calls into question Lord Gill's suitability, unless it is a question of suitability to run a narrowly nationalistic legal system of course in which case fire away. Given that VAT is an EU tax there can be no possible justification for his position (had we been talking about specifically Scots law it might have been different)