The prison law war: When is ok not ok?

The prison law war: When is ok not ok?

I first came across the name of Mark Leech sometime during 1988-89 when I was in Wakefield Prison. A fellow prisoner had painstakingly copied verbatim into a prison notebook in longhand, Mark Leech's article in the Left wing newspaper Fight Racism, Fight Imperialism. The article concerned advice how to sue the Prison Service in the County Court for damages for prisoners lost property. Although well written, the article failed to take into account that different rules applied to Category 'A' prisoners compared with those prisoners in categories 'B', 'C' and 'D'. Therefore, when I tried to implement Mark Leech's advice I came across an obstacle to gaining access to court. Namely, security. The Home Secretary refused to allow me access unless I paid for the security arrangements. In an attempt to surmount the obstacle I contacted a solicitor for advice, who gave me a Legal Aid Green Form to sign. As I did not get the advice which the taxpayers paid for, I contacted 5 more solicitors all to no avail, and they all collected their money and gave me nothing in return. Finally, I got hold of a solicitor called Humphrey Forrest, via a friend called Lucy Vulliamy, who worked at the Humberside Law Centre. He said, "forget about the Legal Aid Green Form". When I was outlining the case, he said, "I don't know anything about prison law, teach me". By admitting his ignorance of the subject, it dawned upon me that the previous 6 solicitors were also ignorant of the subject, however, they did not have the guts to admit this. I noted in Humphrey's Instructions to Counsel that he stated "Instructing Solicitor has relatively little knowledge of prison law, but he is fast learning it under Mr Hirst's expert tuition". The barrister, Tim Owen, went on to write a book with Stephen Livingstone called Prison Law - Text and Materials. In it he states: "Yet most lawyers, even those whose work in criminal practice frequently involves them in decisions about who should go to prison, know comparatively little about the law relating to prisons". That was back then. The situation has improved to a certain extent. Even so, some law firms are advertising to prisoners that they possess an expertise in prison law, when it is arguable that they still possess relatively little knowledge of the subject. The losers here are the prisoners, and the public who pay good money for a poor service.

Mark Leech believes he has come up with the solution, that is, he has devised an OK logo which he gives to solicitors to put on their letterheads and in adverts once they have passed his course to show that they are competent. This has caused uproar amongst those solicitors who believe that they are competent and have had no dealings with Mark Leech and do not possess his logo.

Like me Mark Leech is a former prisoner. He has convictions for being a con man. There is a saying in prison 'Once a con man, always a con man'. In any event, at the end of his article it was signed Mark Leech LLB (Hons). Mark Leech did not at that time and does not now possess a law degree let alone with honours! This is not to say that someone without a law degree cannot be an expert in prison law. I have not got a law degree, but I am still a recognised expert in the subject. Mark Leech set up what he calls the Institute of Prison Law, and offers what he calls a 10 month course in prison law. However, this amounts to 1 day per month for 10 months, in my book that makes it a 10 day course. Part of the course involves visiting 2 prisons for which the students pay for this privilege, a service which the Prison Service provides for free. Personally, I don't think that Mark Leech's word is good enough when it comes down to his recommendation that a solicitor is OK at prison law.

Short changing - Barrister Stanley Best advises prisoners not to be ‘caught off
guard’ when seeking legal representation


A contradiction in terms
STANLEY BEST - BARRISTER, BARNSTAPLE CHAMBERS
I have had two letters recently concerning my September issue article
Short Changing. One comes from a prisoner who, of course, cannot
be identified. The other comes from a solicitor, John Atkins of Atkins
Law, Exeter, enclosed, rather oddly you may think, in an envelope
with a rubber stamped injunction, ‘Rule 39 applies'!
The letter from the prisoner says of his former solicitor that ‘he (said)
to me you don't need a barrister at all, I do all my (own) hearings'.
The prisoner asks for help in finding another solicitor who, by necessary
implication, will instruct Counsel as he wished the original
solicitor to do.
By contrast, solicitor John Atkins, in a four page letter, is very indignant
and speaks of 'firms such as this' (meaning Atkins Law) moving ‘to
a highly professional model involving non-qualified lawyers …’ This
seems to me, however good the non-qualified staff are, to be a contradiction
in terms. You are either a member of the legal profession
or you are not. Mr Atkins also claims that the article is 'defamatory
of (his) and other firms'. This is complete nonsense. There was no
express or implied reference in my article to Atkins Law, nor was
any other firm identified.
Let me make abundantly clear that my article was not directed against
Mr Atkins or his firm, with whom I have had no dealings whatsoever
and of whose approach to his work and his clients I know nothing.
The examples given in my article are, however, based on fact, relating,
as I was careful to say in the article, to only a few firms of solicitors.
I am happy to think that Mr Atkins is not guilty of any of the failings
listed in my article and that, e.g. his firm always makes clear (as the
Law Society requires) to each and every one of his clients (prisoners
or others) that their cases are to be dealt with (when it is so) not by
a solicitor, but by one of his acolytes, i.e. ‘non-qualified lawyers'
and that when any client wishes to be represented by Counsel, the
client's wishes are always complied with. In the case of a few firms,
that is sadly not the case and at times a client's best interests are
ignored. That is something which, I suggest, ought to be made public
in the interests of clients and of the generality of solicitors alike.
The newly elected President of the Law Society said that ethical
standards are of the highest importance to the profession. With
that I entirely agree and look to him to see that they are made well
known to all in the profession and enforced, when necessary, in the
interests both of all clients and the majority of solicitors.

Unqualified representatives
From: Flo Krause, Barrister, Meritz Chambers

Unqualified representatives cont...
From: Manchester Prison Law Practitioners Group