CILEx President
‘Stronger, more inclusive and aspirational’:
the new CILEx President sets out his stall
Introducing Martin Callan, the 53rd President of CILEx, who was inaugurated on 21 July at the Park Plaza Victoria London hotel, taking over from David Edwards. Catherine Baksi reports.
About the author
Catherine Baksi is a freelance legal journalist.
T aking up the reigns at a time when many firms are struggling with the impact of massive legal aid cuts and the need to do more for less, when the prospect of regulatory change looms on the horizon, and as technology threatens to replace lawyers with robots would be hard enough. But Martin steps up to the plate just as the country, as a whole, faces huge uncertainty working out its place in the post-Brexit world.
The incoming president graduated from Cardiff Law School, in 1996, before studying the legal practice course and then, ultimately, pursuing Fellowship with CILEx. He began his career in litigation before spending several years conducting property transactions, with a focus on leasehold, and landlord and tenant matters. He has practice experience in transactional and contentious matters, and has worked at all levels of private practice and in-house .
Entrepreneurial by nature, he has managed large, multi-site departments for a number of firms in England and Wales and, in late 2008, was part of a major project focused on consumer credit litigation, including unenforceability and payment protection insurance recovery. More recently, he worked on a London interbank offered rate (LIBOR) test case with counsel, law firms and claims management companies, looking to develop a solution for mortgage and investment consumers who have been affected by the LIBOR-rigging scandal.
Martin has been an active member of the CILEx council for the past 10 years, and says that he stood for the presidential role because ‘other people convinced me to put myself forward’ . He will continue to work from his London-based practice, Consultant Lawyer Solutions Ltd, as he combines it with his year in the role which he regards as being an ‘ambassador for CILEx’ .
During his presidential year, he says, his main focus will be on two key issues: access to justice and equality and diversity. ‘I’ve been a campaigner for access to justice for several years, due to pressures on the system caused or exacerbated by the legal aid cuts brought in through the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders (LASPO) Act, the Jackson costs reforms, the structural changes to the courts and increased court fees’ which, he says, have ‘worked against people getting access to justice’ .
He continues: ‘Recent dramatic changes in our justice system have left open wounds that CILEx members and professionals like them are working hard to heal. We are particularly concerned by proposed changes to the small claims limit and the ability to claim for general damages, and we will be campaigning to ensure people’s ability to access justice in these areas is not further curtailed.’
Denying people access to the lawyers through whom they can seek redress, he says, is ‘dangerous in a democracy’ . So, he adds: ‘We continue to be strongly opposed to the destruction of access to justice, especially in family matters’ .
On his watch, he says, CILEx will continue to push for a review of the LASPO Act, and the exceptional funding mechanism, as soon as possible and, with the Bar Council and the Law Society, will continue to press for change. To this end, he says, CILEx is ‘very supportive’ of the Access to Justice Commission chaired by Lord Bach, Labour’s former legal aid minister, and he hopes that it will make a submission to the commission in due course.
Martin said: ‘We feel that successive administrations have understandably made decisions based on short-term pressures, but that Lord Bach’s commission is an opportunity for long-term reflection.’ He continues: ‘The justice system of 2020 and beyond will look very different to today, and we have opportunities now to lay the groundwork for a more effective and accessible system in future, including through more responsive technologies and an online court.’
Martin, who is active on social media (see @martincallan), is a fan of what technology can do to increase access to justice and efficiency, where appropriate. ‘The way people interact with the legal process will be radically different. The future is technology, apps and devices,’ he predicts.
Though he is circumspect about the ability of the government to fund and establish effective systems and platforms that users will find accessible and which are delivered on budget, he believes that the future of legal services and justice will be technology focused. ‘It sounds good and is well-intentioned , but will it work? If the courts can adopt technology to deliver access to justice that will be a good thing, so long as it is given the right vehicles to achieve this,’ he says. But he cautions: ‘Bear in mind that a lot of government technology projects have been a disaster and wasted millions while achieving nothing.’
Adding: ‘Technology provides solutions, but also brings problems.’ One of the biggest problems, he suggests, is in relation to professional indemnity insurance and risk management. ‘How safe is your client account and database from a Panama-Papers-style hack?’ he asks.
Martin also cautions about how far innovative technology can go to do much of the work that has, hitherto, been done by actual human lawyers. ‘The whole issue of technology is not just a simple question of process instead of advice. There will be places where it is right, but the future of a legal profession cannot be about lawyers abandoning representing clients.’ He warns: ‘If you depersonalise the process of legal advice, you end up with an impersonal process, focused on systems, where a computer says ‘X’ .’
‘Where’s the justice? An algorithm won’t recognise it: it is not in court trying to convince a judge of their client’s case.’ And he asks: ‘How can I sue the computer for negligence if it is wrong?’ Martin concludes: ‘Technology is useful, but we shouldn’t lose sight of the reasons why we have a legal profession.’
Turning to the next item his ‘to-do ’ list, equality and diversity, he is proud of the tradition that CILEx has had for encouraging members from diverse backgrounds. ‘We have always had a strong diversity portfolio: three-quarters of our members are women, and more than one-third of our new students are from black and minority ethnic backgrounds,’ he notes. But adds, this does not mean that the organisation can rest on its laurels.
Looking across the legal profession, he notes that ‘big strides’ have been taken when it comes to attracting more women and people from black and minority ethnic backgrounds, but not so much progress has been made attracting those from lower socio-economic backgrounds. ‘People from working class backgrounds are still at a disadvantage when it comes to getting into a profession perceived as middle class.’ The profession, he suggests, needs to extend its focus.
Outlining CILEx’s plans to increase diversity and opportunities, he says: ‘We are launching the Chartered Legal Executive Trailblazer Apprenticeship in September, which will open up our profession to even more people from all backgrounds, and working with the judiciary to support improving diversity on the bench. We are also continuing our involvement in cross-professional initiatives, including Pride, which this summer is seeing us expand our presence beyond London to Cardiff and Manchester too’ (see page 34 of this issue).
As a trustee of the Lord Edmund-Davies Legal Education Trust, which supports young people in Wales with an interest in entering the legal profession, Martin hopes to highlight the importance of equality and opportunity, and legal education. As the Law Society and the Bar Council are looking at how to change the way their future members are trained, Martin does not suggest that their training should mirror that of CILEx. ‘CILEx doesn’t seek to tell other professions how they should educate their future members. What the CILEx difference is, is that we pride ourselves on genuine accessibility and affordability. CILEx is thinking about how we educate the legal professionals and lawyers of the future, and I’m excited at what we will have to offer,’ he says.
The thorny issue of legal regulatory reform may now have been kicked into the long grass by the fallout of the outcome of the Brexit referendum. But if it does finds its way back onto the parliamentary agenda, CILEx will face the same issues as the other two main legal professions: separating entirely their representative and regulatory functions, and ensuring proportionate regulation in the public interest. Martin’s view: ‘We want to see a regulatory model which enables specialist lawyers to compete on a level playing field, and that consumers are protected when they seek the services of specialist lawyers or paralegals.’
Pointing to the report on the regulation of legal services to the Legal Services Board by consultant Professor Stephen Mayson which, he says, ‘made it clear there was no burning platform or need for urgent action’ , Martin suggests this means that ‘we are able to take the time to get it right’ .
CILEx, he insists, is ‘open to considering’ the future of legal services regulation, and has begun working collaboratively with CILEx Regulation to ensure a ‘smooth transition’ .
He adds: ‘We think a review of legal services regulation is due, but reform of the regulatory framework should not be limited to simply considering the issue of independence of front-line regulators from their professional bodies.’ Rather, he suggests: ‘It should instead be considered holistically, including the strong public interest role played by bodies such as CILEx, in order to determine how the present regulatory settlement could best be improved to meet the needs of consumers.’
The Competition and Markets Authority’s review will, he hopes, provide a ‘useful context’ for further discussions on the structure and models to consider. From the consumer’s point of view, he states that seeking redress or making complaints must be confusing when, in addition to the Legal Ombudsman, there are so many different legal regulators.
The main problem, he suggests, has been the fact that the profession as a whole has failed to come up with a solution itself. The framework for the current legal regulatory regime, he says, is the result of ‘policy that has come from government’ , and predicts that the solution for the future regulatory regime ‘will come from the profession rather than being imposed by government’ .
Despite the many challenges that lie ahead, and looking forward to his year in office , Martin concludes: ‘I have an amazing opportunity, as President, to carry the institute forward. Being President is a relay, and in a year’s time I look forward to passing the baton on, with a reformed, stronger, more inclusive and aspirational institute’ .