Newcastle April 2016

April 2016
Meet Joanne McLeod, the Law
Society’s Head of Relationship
Management North
In this issue
Probate Fees Consultation
The Legal Walk 2016
Starting the Conversation
LAGLA NE

Looking for a
simple solution…
why not purchase
legal indemnities
online?
ne?
O ur free resi
dential online service
is easy to use.
Obtaining quotes
and purchasing cover is a few
clicks away.
Register e and get started t today!
or call
020 7256 3847
Unable to meet et our
self-issue criteria or
need cover
for new builds, development
or
commercial risks?
Our
bespoke underwriting team have the expertise to assist
you,
please email
enquiries@crminsurance.co.uksurance.co.uk
P remiums correct at
date of publication. Conveyancing Risk Management Limited is authorised
and regulated by the Financial Conduct
Authority.
Registered No. 04568951. Registered Office: 150 Aldersgate Street,
London EC1A 4AB.

Editorial
Editorial
Diary Dates
On the day that the government’s
reversal of criminal legal aid (for 12
months only!) was implemented, I
came across a disturbing report
written by Citizens’ Advice.
Apparently 9 out of 10 people who
seek to pursue family proceedings
as a “litigant in person” suffer strain
to their working lives, finances and
health problems as a consequence.
These individuals are no longer
able to rely upon public funding
and many simply cannot afford to
pay for a lawyer. The system is not
set up to deal with these people
and in some cases litigants are
giving up work to research the law
before going to court in order to
represent themselves in a divorce
or to keep the legal right to see
their children. They find the
process complex and intimidating
and of course, without proper
training are prone to make
mistakes which causes delay and
undoubtedly leads to an escalation
of the overall cost of the case.
You may recall an earlier editorial
when I commented upon the views
of some senior family court judges
who bemoaned the fact that
“litigants in person” did not
understand the procedural rules,
which meant that the judiciary was
having to correct issues that would
have been properly dealt with by a
lawyer at the outset. There should
be no criticism of the nurse or
teacher who cannot access public
funding but does not have the
wherewithal to pay for a lawyer in
a contentious family case. The fault
lies with the government who
slashed the funding without giving
thought to the overall financial
effect that decision would have on
the efficient running of the courts.
One litigant said “I couldn’t get
justice because I couldn’t
understand the justice system” and
that sums up perfectly the position
many find themselves in. Sadly I
think we all accept that there will
be no major shift in government
policy notwithstanding the
concession given in relation to
criminal legal aid and the situation
will continue to frustrate all
involved.
Technology is at the forefront of
our working lives and even those
famed for the quill pen and ink
now find themselves tackling
downloads, uploads and all
manner of mind-boggling
technological terms. The legal aid
agency has developed a portal
whereby legal aid in criminal cases
is submitted online and a faceless
person in Birmingham or
Nottingham either grants or
refuses that application.
Unfortunately the system seems to
be having difficulty coping and
over the past 2-3 weeks, I and
many of my colleagues have been
frustrated at the fact that we could
not access the portal and therefore
have our applications processed.
This is potentially fatal to the
funding of a case as many cases
are concluded at the first hearing
and if the legal aid application is
not date stamped through the
portal on or before the date of
hearing, you won’t be paid!
Contingency plans were put in
place which included telephoning
the Legal Aid Agency – hands up
anyone who actually got through!
And don’t get me started on the
Digital Case System that controls
crown court cases!! We no longer
receive a bundle of papers from
the Crown Prosecution Service as
they upload (that word again) the
case digitally and you are able to
access the case once you are
invited, but of course, it doesn’t
always go to plan and many
counsel have been complaining
that they are unable to access the
case which leads to delay. The
theory is that digitalisation is
efficient, in practice there are
problems.
I suspect those criminal solicitors
who retired before this revolution
have a quiet chuckle to themselves
when they read about the conduct
of criminal cases these days. Who
would have thought that solicitors
now turn up at court with laptops
or tablets and although some of us
try to resist, many solicitors no
longer have paper files and that is
clearly affecting our colleagues in
the personal injury department as
the repetitive strain injury claims
are fast disappearing!
Easter has come and gone very
early this year although our
conveyancing department barely
paused for breath as investors
were furiously trying to beat the
stamp duty increase. I had a quiet
Easter trying to dodge the rain in
Northumberland, but still
managed time for a traditional visit
to Seahouses on Bank Holiday
Monday for fish and chips – easy
pleased you see.
Paul Hanratty
Editor
Contact us at:
Newcastle Upon Tyne Law Society
College House
Northumberland Road
Newcastle Upon Tyne
NE1 8SF
DX 61024 Newcastle upon Tyne
Tel: 0191 232 5654
Fax: 0191 222 0313
Email:
mail@newcastlelawsociety.co.uk
Website:
www.newcastlelawsociety.co.uk
Those wishing to attend CPD
courses must ensure that first they
fill in the appropriate booking form
to reserve a place and return to this
office.
Published by
Baskerville Publications Ltd
25 Southworth Way
Thornton Cleveleys
Lancashire
FY5 2WW
Tel: 01253 829431
Email:
j.baskerville@jbaskerville.co.uk
Web:
www.baskerville-publications.co.uk
Advertising Enquiries
Julia on 01253 829431
The views and opinions expressed in
the Newcastle News are those of the
individual contributors. No
responsibility for any loss of
consequential loss occasioned to any
person acting as a result of any views
and opinions expressed or any
information in the Newcastle News
can be accepted by any contributor,
the Publisher or the editorial board of
the Newcastle Law Society.
The Society was saddened to hear of the death of
long-standing member Bill Haggie. Bill died on
25th February 2016 aged 87 years. An obituary
will follow in a later edition.
Contents...
President’s Column..4 News from the Law Society...5
Probate Fees...6 Interview of the month...8
Legal Walk..9 Got something to say?...10 LAGLA...12

President’s Column
It was a great honour to be elected
as the 190th President of
Newcastle Law Society at the AGM
on the 29th February.
At the last count the Society had
891 members, all of whom receive
the Newcastle News. Whilst there
are many who already know me, I
expect that the majority of you do
not, so please allow me to
introduce myself.
I was admitted as a Solicitor in
1985 and since qualification I have
always practised in Gateshead.
For most of this time I was a
Partner in Foley Harrison until our
merger with Ben Hoare Bell LLP
four years ago. In my early days,
as was customary in High Street
practices then, I would turn my
hand to most cases which came
through the door. However, over
the years specialism has been the
order of the day and for some time
now I have been a Specialist Family
Lawyer and I am Head of the
Family Team at my firm.
A great majority of the work I have
undertaken throughout my career
has been publicly funded and
clearly there have been massive
challenges to Legal Aid Lawyers for
many years now. I served on the
Society’s Standing Committee for
five years or so during the 1990s
when the Government’s assault on
Legal Aid Practitioners began in
earnest, so I have long experience
of dealing with challenges
affecting the profession.
I was first persuaded to become
involved with the Society by Tony
Smith, who at that point was
President (and in fact the last
President to practise in Gateshead)
some 23 years ago. At that stage I
had little insight into the workings
of our Society and what it could do
to represent the interests of the
profession. I often used to think
‘What does the Law Society do for
me’. At the end of the day, this is
your Society and if members have
any issues which they feel need to
be aired, then they should make
their views known. The Standing
Committee will shortly be
considering the priorities for the
Society for the next year and if any
members wish to contribute to
this, please contact me. I would
encourage you to do so.
Since my election (and indeed
shortly before), I have been busy
representing the Society at various
events. You will have read David
Gray’s article about the Human
Rights Defenders in Columbia in
the last edition of Newcastle News.
Micky Macgregor and I attended
their presentation in February and
it was enlightening. I remarked to
Micky that we as solicitors often
complain about issues such as
frustrations of Court listing and
difficult clients, but the Columbian
Lawyers face personal and
professional challenges which are
unimaginable to most of us. They
truly deserve our support.
The issue of equality and diversity
within the profession is a hot topic.
LAGLA (Lesbian and Gay Lawyers
Association) North East Branch
held a panel event which I
attended. There were some
powerful discussions about the
experiences of attitudes towards
members of the LGBT community
within the legal profession. There
will be a comprehensive report
upon the event later in this issue
and I would urge you all to read
this.
I also attended the swearing in
ceremony of our new District
Judge (Magistrates Court), Sarah
Jane Griffiths, who by now will
probably be known to many of our
members who are Criminal
Practitioners. I was privileged to
be able to welcome her to her new
post on behalf of the Society and
we wish her the best of luck in her
new role.
I was also kindly invited by our
colleagues at the Tees Valley Law
Society to their Annual Dinner
which was a very entertaining and
enjoyable event. We will shortly
be hosting a joint meeting of
representatives of all of the North
East local Law Societies to assist in
maintaining our links and
discussing common interests of
the profession.
Finally, a few words of thanks.
Firstly, to our learned Editor, Paul
Hanratty, for his kind words in his
editorial piece in the March edition
of the Newcastle News. Those of
you who read it will recall that he
(amongst other things) praised my
skills as a goalkeeper. Sadly I fear
his recollection of my competence
has been clouded by the mists of
time!
Secondly, I would wish to thank
Micky Macgregor for all of his hard
work during his presidency. I
hope that I will be able to continue
to match his determination to deal
with the issues facing the
profession during my period at the
helm.
Mark Harrison
President
4 Newcastle News

The Relationship Management team is changing
- update
Over the last few months the Relationship Management team has been
undergoing a reorganisation and we would like to share the results with
you.
The reorganisation has been carried out to ensure that we are meeting
our member’s needs fully and:
• Targeting the team around the country according to where
members are based
• Improving links with in-house members
• Making better use of a variety of communication and
engagement channels.
The new team structure will be broadly split across four main areas as
opposed to nine. Each area will be led by a head of relationship
management and will be supported by relationship manager and
relationship management executive roles. The team will be led by a
director of Relationship Management. The Wales Office will remain the
same with the team joining Public Affairs.
The Head of Relationship Management for the North is Jo McLeod and
she is supported by Cath Carter, Relationship Management Executive in
the North West. We are currently interviewing for a Relationship Manager
and will keep you informed as posts are filled.
Local News
News from the national Law Society
Jo McLeod
Head of Relationship Management North
joanne.mcleod@lawsociety.org.uk
M - 07980725573
T – 0161 763 6821
Cath Carter
Relationship Management Executive North
catherine.carter@lawsociety.org.uk
M - 07812675150
You can now sign up to ‘My Law Society’
My Law Society is a new function on the Law Society website that allows
members to customise the information they see. It's also where solicitors
can update parts of their profile on Find a Solicitor, our online directory,
helping them to attract more clients.
On average over 550,000 visitors use Find a Solicitor each month, so
enhancing your profile will help boost your appeal to prospective clients.
You can sign up to My Law Society at www.lawsociety.org.uk/log-in/ - you
don't have to be a solicitor to do it. When you register for My Law Society,
you can also update parts of your Find a Solicitor profile.
The new areas you can update are:
• tagline – The individual’s unique selling proposition in up to
140 characters
• biography – Detail of knowledge, expertise, career history, legal
issues worked on
• social media and web links
• languages – Add or remove languages spoken
• areas of law (practice)
• alternative email and telephone – Option to display a preferred
phone
You can also watch our help videos on My Law Society and Find a Solicitor
Newcastle News 5

Consultation
Probate Fees
Consultation on proposals to reform fees for grants of probate
Response from the Newcastle upon Tyne Law Society
Question 1: Do you agree that it would be fairer to charge a fee that
is proportionate to the value of the estate compared with charging a
fixed fee for all applications for grant of probate applications? Please
give reasons
Whilst not necessarily in favour of charging fees on a sliding scale, we
understand the need to review the structure. Introducing a sliding scale
seems sensible within reason. However, personal applications should still
be charged a higher fee than those made by solicitor applicants due to
the extra work required by the Probate Registry in dealing with personal
applicants.
Perhaps a fixed “extra” fee of £500 per personal application on top of the
sliding scale of fees would be appropriate. =
As per comments in question 3, if the fees are increased as proposed
there is potential for a greater likelihood of fraud amongst personal
applicants to avoid falling into higher fee bands and this will increase the
burden on court staff to investigate and recover when fraud comes to
light. As these extra staff resources are more likely to arise from personal
applicants this increases the justification for an additional fee to those in
this class.
Question 2: Do you agree with the proposal to increase the threshold
from £5,000 to £50,000? Please give reasons
Yes, this seems sensible given the increase in property values. The banks
have increased the level at which they will allow bank accounts to be
released without the need for a Grant and this brings the need for a Grant
Convert more
conveyancing
enquiries
into clients
*
davidopie@etsos.co.uk
6 Newcastle News
2 month
FREE
TRIAL *
more in line with that level. To avoid future issues with the threshold
lagging behind as the value of estates increase, it will be helpful if
automatic inflationary increases or small fixed incremental increases can
be adopted.
Questions 3: Do you agree with the government’s proposals to
charge fees for probate applications as set out in Table 1? Please give
reasons
No. The scale proposed seems prohibitive and punitive. Many higher
value estates will be predominantly land/property based (for example,
agricultural estates). These often have very little in the way of liquid
assets available. At the time of applying for the Grant, no independent
assessment of values, for example by the District Valuer, has taken place.
What happens if different values are subsequently agreed with HMRC
which place the estate into a higher or lower bracket?
The work required by the Probate Registry to check and issue a Grant
does not alter depending upon the value of the estate. In fact where the
value of the estate is higher, there can be less work for the Probate
Registry as an IHT421 is submitted with the Oath. In excepted
estates/smaller value estates, the Probate Registry have to check the
IHT205 to make sure the application is correct. There is arguably more
work required in these cases.
The document produced by the Probate Registry is the same for every
estate and therefore it is inequitable to charge such high fees simply
because the estate has a higher value. If however a sliding scale of fees is
required then a lower scale is suggested as follows:
Up to £50,000 £0
£50,001 to £300,000 £300
£300,001 to £500,000 £600
£500,001 to £1million £1,000
Over £1million £1,400
If the fees are set at too high a level then it may actually reduce the tax
take that might otherwise have been expected or achieved. This is
because with high fees there will be a temptation by some to avoid the
court fee or to fall into a lower bracket. As the current system relies on
honesty to some extent for excepted estates, it is open to abuse
particularly amongst personal applicants who are not bound by
regulatory bodies like professionals.
There will also be a great temptation by many to place assets into joint
names (or into trust in lifetime) with their children to avoid the need for a
Grant and thus avoid the court fees that Probate will require. This will not
only mean fees are not collected in these estates, but of greater concern,
will increase the cases of elder financial abuse. This in turn will put a
greater strain on other public resources such as the police, Social services,
CPS and the Court system.
The proposal is open to criticism that it is a tax raising measure rather
than to fund the Probate Service. The proposal means that some estates
that may be exempt from Inheritance Tax due to reliefs now become
“taxable” through the fee system. This may be justified for the reasons
given in the document however it is not reasonable to extend this to a
backdoor removal of the spousal exemption. ISAs have grown in
popularity as a result of Government encouragement and over the years
the amounts built up in ISAs have begun to exceed the levels that Banks
will release without a Grant, a problem which will become more acute in
the future. It is reasonable for a spouse to incur a cost based fee to obtain
a Grant to gain access to their deceased spouse’s savings, however it is
submitted, it is unreasonable for them to be “taxed” on those “tax free
savings”.
This could be simply avoided by the spouse signing a declaration that
they are the principal beneficiary and the value of the assets not passing
to the surviving spouse is below say £50,000. These applications could

Law Society News
then be subject to a lower fee in line with that currently charged.
There could similarly be a process where the court fee can be refunded in
situations where there is a subsequent Deed of Variation in favour of the
surviving spouse or an appointment out of a discretionary trust of all or
the vast bulk of the trust assets in favour of the surviving spouse.
Question 4: Are there other ways that executors should be supported
to make payment of the fee and/or examples of banks of funding
institutions who regularly assist with finances before the grant of
probate? Please provide details
Most banks will only release money pre Grant to pay for the undertaker
and IHT. They are not as far as we are aware prepared to release money
before the Grant for any other purpose unless the balance in the account
is below their threshold for release of the total balance without the Grant.
Professional executors may refuse to act and renounce if faced with fees
of £10,000 or £20,000. Sole practitioners or small firms (who may
specialise in this area) may be operating under a small overdraft facility
that may be problematic for such large disbursements particularly at
times when the firms are facing VAT quarters, indemnity insurance
premiums or similar costs. This will also be an issue where the estate is
subject to higher bracket fees but the estate assets comprise farms or
businesses which may be difficult for the solicitor executor to liquidate to
recover the court fee in an expedient period of time. Personal applicants
may also face similar cash flow problems on larger estates at the
proposed fee level. If familial relations are strained this may increase the
risk of conflict and contentious estates.
If the banks do agree that they will release money to pay the Probate
Court fees in advance of the Grant (which will alleviate some of the above
concerns but not in every estate) this will potentially increase the work
required by the Probate Registry. The Probate Registry will have to preissue
a reference for the estate to be given to the bank and have a
mechanism for direct payment by the bank. This will become even more
relevant once cheques are abolished.
Borrowing to raise funds to pay IHT is already prohibitive in terms of
costs, interest and time. Executors often have to give personal
undertakings which can deter people from acting as personal
representatives and delay the estate administration. Borrowing to fund
the Court fees would present similar problems.
The full text of the discussion paper referred to in the above
letter has not been reprinted here for reasons of space
One consideration in large estates with substantial business or
agricultural assets may be for the court fee to be deferred but subject to a
charge similar to Public Funded work where the LSC will enter into an
interest bearing Charge over property.
Question 5: Do you agree with the proposal to remove grant of
probate fees from the remissions scheme? Please give reasons
Yes but there should be an alternative agreement in place for personal
representatives who cannot pay the fees in advance of the Grant. There
should also be consideration given to alternatives where the Grant is only
being taken out to pursue a Fatal Accident Claim; the Personal
representatives will already be facing a large court fee to issue the Claim
and the additional burden of a high Court fee to obtain a Grant of
Probate may be prohibitive and mean that the claim is not pursued and
justice is not achieved. One proposal would be to offer deferment of the
fee payment until the Grant has been issued and the assets realised. In
Fatal Accident claims it also means the court fee can then be assessed on
the actual amount recovered rather than the hoped for amount.
Non Contentious Sub-Committtee
Newcastle upon Tyne Law Society
30th March 2016
Newcastle News 7

Interview
Newcastle News: Interview of the Month
Learn more about Jo McLeod our new national Law Society Head
of Relationship Management for the Northern Region – including
the North East, North West, Yorkshire and Manchester.
1 What made you decide to apply for the new role of Head of Relationship Management for the
Northern Region?
Under Catherine Dixons leadership the Law Society now has a very clear strategy and vision. The restructure
of the relationship management team is a recognition of the importance of our members in the regions and
I wanted to be a part of that team. Having been at the Law Society for 16 years, most recently as Senior
Regional Manager it seemed the natural step to take.
What do you hope to achieve and what do you feel are the priorities for the profession at the
moment?
In the short term, raising awareness of the Government's consultation on separation of regulation and
representation. The legal profession must continue to be seen as independent from Government. Setting
standards, entry into the profession and awarding title must remain with the profession.
Over the longer term, to continue to build relationships with members to understand their needs and
ensure their voices are heard, and that the Law Society continues to promote, support and represent
Solicitors.
The North has the highest concentration of Solicitors and firms outside London and the Northern
Powerhouse has the potential to impact firms and the way firms are managed. The announcement in the
Budget that some criminal justice powers are to be devolved to Manchester could impact member firms so
we will be working with firms and stakeholders as this develops.
2 If we put you on the spot and you had to choose an alternate career, what would that be?
I think I would enjoy being a train driver but only on the Settle to Carlisle route!
3 What has been your most embarrassing moment during your professional career?
There have been many. I have a special talent for losing at least one of the delegates when we have inward
delegations from foreign bars & associations, but the most toe-curling was tripping whilst getting into a car
and finding myself sprawled across the Attorney Generals lap. Not my finest hour!
4 Which sort of work gives you the most job satisfaction?
Getting out and about meeting members across the broad range of practices is the best part of the job. I
also really enjoy the campaigning elements of the role. Flying the flag for the brand of solicitor with external
stakeholders be they inward economic bodies or at party political conferences is also very enjoyable.
6 What do you do in your spare time?
I enjoy the outdoors. I have a Springer Spaniel so I do a lot of walking with her in the West Pennine Moors.
Unfortunately, I have no sense of direction and am hopeless with an OS map so walks are often longer than
anticipated. Another member of the menagerie is a horse so a lot of my time (and money) is spent with
him. Luckily, he instinctively knows the shortest route home.
Quickies
what non law book are you reading at the moment?
Robin Hobb, Ship of Destiny
what is the most recent film you have seen?
Dad's Army
what is your favourite food?
Thai
which is your favourite restaurant?
The Fez in Northern Cyprus
where is your favourite holiday destination?
The tiny island of La Palma in the Canaries
what is your favourite pet?
A tortoise - low maintenance
8 Newcastle News

The North East Legal Support Trust invites you to join us for the
Newcastle Legal Walk 2016
on Monday 23 May 2016
The Newcastle Legal Walk is a 10km sponsored walk around Newcastle and the sights of
the city to raise money for local advice services.
Get involved
Get a team together and join others from the judiciary, law firms, chambers,
government departments, in-house legal teams - their friends, family and even a few
dogs!
Register at www.nelst.org.uk
or contact us at events@nelst.org.uk
Why do we walk?
The need for free legal advice services has grown in the past few years. The recession has
increased poverty and reduced support services, meanwhile funding for the advice sector
has reduced.
The organisations we support:
Prevent families being made homeless
Prevent destitution
Help older people gain the support to which they are entitled
Help women and children who have been trafficked for domestic servitude or
prostitution
Why should you take part?
We simply can’t overcome the effects of the huge reduction in government and local
authority funding over the past few years. What we can do is ensure that many of the people
most in need get help who would otherwise have been denied it.
By taking part in the Norwich Legal Walk and seeking sponsorship from your friends, family
and colleagues, you will be helping secure vital funds need for hugely important local
causes.
What will happen on the day?
Registration will be open between 5:00pm and 5:30pm and we ask that all participants report
to register before having a photograph taken with the lead walkers. Once this has been done
you are ready to set off on the walk and we wish you the best of luck!
We will be running a photography challenge and encourage you to enter by tweeting your
photos from the events @NorthEastLST using the hashtag #legalwalk.
The post walk celebration will begin upon your arrival at the end venue and we would like to
invite you to join us for a complementary drink to celebrate your enormous success!
Newcastle News 9

Local News
Got something to say?
Newcastle Law Society is always pleased to hear from its members so
please get in touch if there are any matters you would like to raise. We
have a number of specialist sub committees (if you would like to sit on
one please contact the Chair) and try to keep a broad watching brief on
any legal issue that may affect the profession in the North East. We will
reply to consultations putting forward a regional view where applicable,
we have representatives sitting on many court user groups; we lobby our
MPs and undertake a variety of other initiatives on behalf of our members.
If you need to contact us you are always welcome to phone, e mail or
write to the office or if you prefer you can contact any of the below
directly.
Joe Haigh, Bond Dickinson LLP, Newcastle
0191 279 9000, joe.haigh@bonddickinson.com
Member Non Contentious sub committee
Chris Sheppard, Stockdale and Reid, North Shields
0191 257 1341, sally@stockdale-reid.co.uk
Chair Membership sub committee
Angela Carver, Samuel Phillips Law Firm, Newcastle
0191 255 0262, angelacarver@samuelphillips.co.uk
Chair Education sub committee
Newcastle upon Tyne Law Society
College House
Northumberland Road
Newcastle upon Tyne
NE1 8SF
Telephone 0191 2325654 Fax 0191 2220313
DX 61024 Newcastle upon Tyne
mail@newcastlelawsociety.co.uk
www.newcastlelawsociety.co.uk
President
Mark Harrison, Ben Hoare Bell LLP, Gateshead
0191 477 6333, markharrison@benhoarebell.co.uk
Vice President
Lewis Pearson, Pearson Caulfield, Newcastle
0191 261 8878, l.pearson@pearson-caulfield.co.uk
Chair Crime sub committee
Deputy Vice President
Alison Hall, Hay & Kilner, Newcastle
0191 232 8345, alison.hall@hay-kilner.co.uk
Chair Non-Contentious sub committee
Honorary Treasurer
Bill Meikle c/o Newcastle Law Society Office
Director of Operations Kate Goodings
c/o Newcastle Law Society Office
Kate is the Secretary and chairs the Newsletter and Social sub
committees,manages the office and assists all the other sub committees
as required.
Administrators
Past President
Past President
Council Member
Standing Committee Members
Shirley Hicks and Mandy Dias,
Newcastle Law Society Office.
James Charlton, David Auld & Co, Morpeth
01670 505844, james.charlton@david-auld.co.uk
Member of the Membership sub committee
Micky Macgregor, Gibson & Co, Hexham
01434 602131, mm@gibsons-law.com
Chair Professional Purposes sub committee
Verity Dobbie, Swinburne Snowball &
Jackson, Consett
01207 502 532,
verity.dobbie@ssj-solicitors.com
Member Professional Purposes sub
committee
Allan Devine,
Swinburne Maddison, Durham
0191 384 2441,
and@swinburnemaddison.co.uk
Allan is the Law Society Council Member at
Chancery Lane representing our area.
Max Winthrop, Short Richardson and Forth, Newcastle
0191 232 0283, mw@srflegal.co.uk
Member Civil Litigation sub committee
Charlotte Talbot, Beecham Peacock, Newcastle
0191 232 3048, ctalbot@beechampeacock.co.uk
Chair Family sub committee
Jonathan Flower, Ward Hadaway, Newcastle
0191 204 4000, jonathan.flower@wardhadaway.com
Member Family sub committee
Gill Burnett, DAC Beachcroft LLP, Newcastle
0191 404 4117, gburnett@dacbeachcroft.com
Member Civil Litigation sub committee
David Spires, Watson Burton LLP, Newcastle
0191 244 4334, david.spires@watsonburton.com
Member Civil Litigation sub committee
Christian Butler, Silk Family Law, Newcastle
0191 495 7186, christian.butler@silkfamilylaw.co.uk
Member Family sub committee
Mike Bishop, David Gray Solicitors, Newcastle
0191 232 9547, mike.bishop@davidgray.co.uk
Chair Legal Aid sub committee
Co-opted members
John Marshall, Bond Dickinson LLP
0191 279 9000, john.marshall@bonddickinson.com
Large Firms Representative
Clare Hurst, Newcastle Law Centre
0191 230 4777, clarehurst@newcastlelawcentre.co.uk
Member Education sub committee
John Bates, Senior Lecturer, School of Law
Northumbria University
0191 227 4729, john.bates@northumbria.ac.uk
Member Education sub committee
Alison Smullen, Sage UK Ltd
c/o Newcastle Law Society office 0191 2325654
alison.smullen@sage.com
In House Representative, together with
Julie Boakes, Bond Dickinson LLP
0191 279 9520, julie.boakes@bonddickinson.com
Other
Sophie Moss, Hay & Kilner, Newcastle
0191 232 8345, sophie.moss@hay-kilner.co.uk
JLD & Member Education sub committee
Michael Reed, Gibson & Co, Newcastle
0191 273 3817, michael.reed@gibsons-law.com
Chair Civil Litigation sub committee

Advertising Feature
Changing behaviour in the information age
Recently, I was lucky enough to
attend a Legal IT conference
having been invited to sit on a
panel that included Pinsent
Masons LLP and Addleshaw
Goddard LLP. Much of the
conversation was focused on
how technology can be used to
improve client relationships.
Amongst the many interesting
insights, there were a few key
points that clearly resonated with
the audience, one of which was
the issue of having to remember
various logins for multiple
websites that lawyers use every
day. This raised a knowing chuckle
amongst the audience who clearly
identified with the problem of not
having one central hub to access
all their online processes. So why
did the audience find this
amusing?
Well, it’s due to our attitudes
changing over the years, bringing
new expectations. I believe that
now, more than ever, people are
conscious of which technologies
are creating efficiencies and
making their day to day lives
easier and which are not.
Nowadays technology has become
completely embedded into society
in a variety of ways, and we now
expect to be able to use
technology in every aspect of our
lives – personally, socially and
professionally.
We are also more astutely aware of
those technologies which we
genuinely enjoy using in our
personal lives, thus, it is only
natural that we would come to
expect a similar standard of this
convenience in our professional
lives too. Particularly with the
advent of the internet, it is clear
that our attitudes and
expectations are continuously
evolving with regards to
technological change and that
there will continue to be an
increasing overlap between our
professional and personal worlds.
In my opinion, one of the biggest
changes to behaviour over the last
20 years has been the result of
technology changes. We have
come to expect ‘instant
gratification’, or our need for
everything to be easier, faster,
flexible, and efficient, and to be at
our fingertips. Some may argue
that technology has turned
humans into a lazy, lethargic
species, however, I would counter
that it is simply a shift in attitude,
in that we now know there are
smarter ways to achieve our goals,
whether that’s at home or at work.
It used to be that we had to learn
to adapt to technology, but today,
technology is built to adapt to us.
You will find it permeates our lives
everywhere you look– just think
smart thermostats that conserve
energy, online shopping sites that
tell you what other products you
may ‘also like’, navigating a foreign
city using Google maps, or even
setting up automatic payments
through online banking. So why
wouldn’t we naturally expect this
in our working lives too? We now
co-exist with technology and
going forward, we must adapt
together to ensure a smooth
evolvement and optimal
efficiencies. Once this co-existence
is noted and implemented in
professional environments, the
results will show why employing
intuitive technology in the
workplace is so essential.
This is why I believe that
conveyancers must also evolve
with technology, and that those in
management must focus on
satisfying the needs of those at
the coalface to make their work
lives easier and get staff working
smarter, not harder.
Scott Bozinis
CEO
Infotrack
Scott Bozinis
Expect the
Unexpected
GCS are there for you…
With policies that last in
perpetuity, cover all successors
in title and can be issued
instantly!
Whether it is Instant Issue Pack,
Online or Bespoke we are
committed to providing clear,
easy solutions whatever the
problem!
Call 01435 868050 to speak to an
underwriter today.
www.gcs-title.co.uk
01435 868050
underwriters@gcs-title.co.uk
Guaranteed Conveyancing Solutions Limited is authorised and regulated by the
Financial Conduct Authority. Registered in England and Wales No. 3623950
Legal Indemnity Insurance

LAGLA
Starting The Conversation
Following on from the successful launch night of the Lesbian and Gay Lawyers Association (LAGLA) North East in November, Newcastle University
played host to LAGLA NE’s first event of 2016, a panel discussion: “LGBT Equality in the Legal Profession - Learning from the Past”, as part of the LGBT
History Month on 24 February.
Bringing together legal professionals from across the region to Start the Conversation, sitting on the 5 star panel was Professor Chris Ashford of
Northumbria University, Cris McCurley of Ben Hoare Bell, Cliff Veitch of David Gray LLP, Neil Jones of New Park Court Chambers and Katherine
Henderson, Immigration Judge of the First-Tier Tribunal of the Immigration Asylum Chamber.
The interactive event was thought provoking for both those in the audience as well as those on the panel as the questions posed by Louise Asquith,
Chair of LAGLA NE, created a forum for discussions between the panel and the audience. In a society where we like to think we are diverse and
accepting, it was surprising to hear some of the things that members of the panel and the audience have had to endure and even more so what is still
happening today, purely on the basis of sexuality.
It was clear from the discussion that massive moves have been made, but also how fragile any progress is. Complacency is not an option -things have to
keep moving forward. The panel and audience had a lot more to say than there was time for sadly, but this really emphasises the need to have the
Conversation and to push the boundaries and challenge thoughts and perceptions.
As Vice-Chair of LAGLA North East, the panel discussion really
demonstrated the importance of LAGLA’s mission. Not only did we
bring together 5 legal professionals, each at the top of their respective
fields of academia, practice, the bar and the judiciary, we gave them a
large audience allowing for a diverse and engaging hour and a half of
discussion. The panel served to show how far the profession has come
in accepting and celebrating LGBT diversity yet also shows that there
may be more needed to be done. Issues such as the lawyer stereotype
and ‘political correctness’ brought in differing opinions and
emphasised the need for this sort of discussion as developing
conversation can only lead to a more open and accepting profession.
Alexander Maine
Vice-Chair LAGLA NE
Attending the event as someone who doesn’t identify as LGB or T,
and as someone who has never personally encountered the
prejudice and barriers that can exist for the LGBT community, it was
shocking to hear what some people have had to endure. It made me
realise how far there is still to go to achieve LAGLA’s aim: true
equality for the LGBT within the legal profession. It is very easy for
individual’s to say “I’m accepting” or “I’m politically correct, I wouldn’t
say anything”, but the fact that the tag of political correctness is
needed at all really shows how far we are from an individual’s
sexuality not being considered at all and people simply being
accepted for who they are. There would be no need for political
correctness if people were truly accepted.
Jayne Moyle
Social Secretary LAGLA NE
The idea that the profession which enforces equality in the workplace is
itself in possession of a workplace that is not itself 100% equal is a
perplexing paradox.
The Conversation was an evening of raw commentary – I must admit, a
lot more came from it than I was expecting – I underestimated how
little Conversation has been had in the North East. I was particularly
pleased that Trans issues were discussed and I look forward to
discussing this further at future events.
The experiences I heard on the night humbled me greatly. I am so
thankful to everyone that has broken the silence at a time when it
wasn’t easy to do so. You’ve got us to where we are today and we must
keep going.
Indeed, there has been a huge transformation in attitude. We heard
from a young, openly gay, audience member who explained that he has
never experienced any prejudice whatsoever, which is very
encouraging, (the product of the courage to date). But the Conversation
also showed that although such positive experiences are happening,
this experience is not everyone’s experience. There can still be anxiety
in being LGB or T in the legal workplace albeit, there is the feeling that
this will disappear, one day, subject to further effort.
There was a definite consensus that there is still work to be done, even
by those who have had no difficulty. It was agreed we must not be
complacent. This means going further than doing only what’s needed to
tick the ‘E&D box’; it’s for everyone to create a culture of openness, so
the LGBT professional can put all their energy into their work and not
into worrying what people will think or having to keep their private life
cryptic.
understanding that they hold the power – they can tip the fulcrum
towards there being a culture of Conversation and openness. Colleagues
of mine have been that person to me – they’ve allowed me to focus on
my training by being not only accepting, but openly accepting. If you
know someone who is LGB or T in your office, you could be that person
to them. Start today.
The words ‘obligation’ and ‘contribution’ have stayed with me since the
Conversation. It was agreed that everyone has the ‘obligation’ –
everyone – there is no room for apathy. We have all got to carry on
making the change. So how are you going to contribute?
The night was also a powerful reminder that there is a world out there a
world away from where we are and LAGLA North East will therefore be
raising money at our next event for Adiobe , a Nigerian lesbian who was
resident in Sunderland seeking asylum, but deported on Christmas Eve
whilst her appeal was in place.
May I again thank the panel members and those who attended for their
engagement and support. I’ll see you and hopefully some new faces, in
April. Watch this space.
I will finish with a comment made on the night: “…all we’ve been
wanting is acceptance…it’s nothing too shocking.”
Start Your Conversation.
Louise Asquith
Chair LAGLA NE
Indeed, one option for the LGB or T legal worker is to be open about it.
And it was said, there is an obligation on the individual to be open, if
they feel it is safe to do so and if they want to. But it’s not easy not
caring what people think – it takes a lot of self-work to be confident. It’s
easy to say ‘be open’ but not so easy when you’re the one that has to
do it.
The key, I believe, is for the non-LGBT legal worker to start
12 Newcastle News

Accounting
FRS 102 – Recognising revenue in law firms
Many partners in law firms will have the terms FRS 5 and UITF40 etched in
their memories and will recollect the cash flow horrors and transitional
accounting complications of moving from a cash basis of accounting to a
full accruals basis in respect on income. Whilst we all thought this issue
was closed unfortunately more recent interpretations of a new
accounting standard have called revenue recognition in law firms into
question again.
Briefly, in terms of background, FRS 102 is an accounting standard that
will replaces FRS 5 , UITF 40 and all other accounting standards over the
next couple of years. So FRS 102 becomes the relevant basis on which law
firms should prepare their accounts – certainly for tax purposes and
where relevant as an LLP or Limited Company for statutory reporting
purposes.
A particular area where FRS 102 changes the revenue recognition
position compared to FRS 5 / UITF 40 is in respect of conditional fee
arrangements and general contingent fee work.
Recognising revenue under FRS 5 / UITF 40
• At the balance sheet date if the matter contingency was met
e.g. liability was admitted, then the best estimate of the matter
value (recognisable revenue) at that time would be included in
the accounts.
• For the purposes of revenue recognition on such matters post
balance sheet events up to the point of signing off the
accounts remained relevant.
• If the matter contingency was not met at the balance sheet
date law firms had the option to recognise the unbilled time at
either nil or cost for revenue purposes.
• Post balance sheet events for matters where liability is not
admitted at the balance sheet date were not relevant.
Recognising revenue under FRS 102
Sector interpretation here has been evolving over the last year and the
following summarises the most prevalent current thinking:-
• The significance of the balance sheet date has been removed.
The relevant point for assessing the status of contingent fees is
now perceived to be the date the accounts are signed off.
• At this date if the contingency is met then the best estimate of
realisable revenue as at the balance sheet date would be
included in the accounts as revenue.
• If however at this date the contingency is not met then firms
will need to either value the matters at nil or full realisable
revenue.
• In order to support the option of recognising revenue on the
matter at full realisable revenue value firms will need to
demonstrate that:
o The value of revenue can be measured reliably
o It’s probable that the economic benefits associated with the
transaction will crystallise for the firm
o The stage of completion of the transaction at the reporting
o
period end can be measured reliably
Costs incurred and cost to complete the matter can be reliably
measured.
• Crucially, the option to recognise revenue on such matters at
“cost” has not been accommodated under FRS 102.
Impact for law firms
Firms undertaking substantial amounts of contingency and conditional
fee agreement based work are the firms who are potentially affected by
this new interpretation. So; areas such as personal injury, medical
negligence, commercial property and general commercial transactions
are some of the common types of work firms encounter.
Comparing the differing treatments above; there is now a challenge for a
law firm to show that where a contingency is not met that it can meet the
requirements to support the recognition of any revenue at all. So;
perhaps with the exception of firms that undertake large volumes of
homogenous matter types it now seems relatively easy to support a
revenue recognition level of nil for such matters.
For firms who under FRS 5 recognised revenue on these matters where
the condition or contingency has not been met by deferring costs as work
in progress there is a harder challenge now around supporting a revenue
recognition value to such matters under FRS 102. For such firms this now
means that in order to avoid a nil valuation under such matters they will
need to both meet the hurdles outlined above and then recognise
revenue at full realisable value rather than cost under FRS 5.
In our view law firms in this position will need to be looking at their
process for supporting the revenue recognition in such matters but also
reasons to keep the level of such revenue controlled appropriately taking
into account any remaining risks and timeframes over which such income
will ultimately be received.
Overall our expectation is that for the majority of law firms this will not
result in a materially different figure for income recognised in any
individual reporting period from their current approach. It is however
expected that more thought and a change in valuation processes may be
required moving forwards to support recognition assertions.
Uncertainty and making comparisons
There is a good deal of subjectivity surrounding the interpretation of FRS
102 in this area. Invariably this means that the accounting treatment
between law firms acting in the same areas of law could be quite different
and may quite reasonably change over time.
In some respects this is similar to the current position where law firms
have the option of cost of nil recognition policy on matters where the
contingency is not met; but the guidance under the previous UITF 40 did
enforce a consistency of approach once chosen. Under FRS 102 the whole
subject is more subjective.
Readers of law firm accounts will need to consider this point moving
forwards and the explanation of revenue recognition approach under the
accounting policies notes in law firms will become an increasingly
important consideration.
Key action points for firms:
• If your firm currently applies a cost approach for income
recognition on matters where contingences are not met you
need to consider the impact of FRS 102 on your year-end
procedures, recognition approach and what impact this might
have on your reported income and profits.
• It would be prudent to consider the impact of post balance
sheet events on revenue recognition in your firm- Under FRS
102 is there a greater compulsion for you to get your accounts
signed off earlier or later than you currently do?
• You may want to revisit retirement arrangements for partners in
conjunction with your revenue recognition approach under FRS
102.
• Extra care will need to be taken in future when comparing the
results of law firms – potentially in merger / acquisition
arrangements but also in more general benchmarking exercises
to take account of the greater degree of interpretation and
volatility which looks set to be prevalent under FRS 102 in
revenue recognition terms.
Whilst this is both a complex and technical subject area hopefully the
above briefing note is constructive. If you would like further details or
would like to discuss your position in more depth please get in touch.
Andrew Allen / Partner
Andrew.Allen@francisclark.co.uk
Newcastle News 13

Local News
Northumbria Law School blog shortlisted for
prestigious teaching award
A blog created by academics at Northumbria Law School has been
nominated for a prestigious teaching award.
Elaine Campbell and Victoria Gleason, academics and supervisors in the
Law School’s Student Law Office, designed and created the blog, We Take
Care Of Business which has been named in the shortlist for the
Routledge/ALT Teaching Law with Technology Prize 2016, less than two
years since its launch.
Based around company, commercial and intellectual property law, the
student-led blog provides a valuable insight into what it is like to be a
student working on a clinical legal education programme as well as
practical hints and tips for businesses. The blog, which has proven to be
hugely popular with students with over 35 entries from law
undergraduates, has also been recognised overseas, with readers from
over 45 different countries across the world.
Elaine said: “We Take Care Of Business was set up within the Student Law
Office at Northumbria to provide students with a platform to write about
whatever law related topic they chose. Northumbria Law School has one
of the longest running business law clinics in the UK and the blog is a
unique opportunity for our students to develop commercial awareness
and digital skills as well as provide information to businesses. The success
We Take Care Of Business has achieved so far is something we’re very
proud of.”
Having expanded since its launch to include posts shaped by student’s
interests and experiences such as the importance of a law firm’s
reputation and raising commercial awareness through TED talks, the blog
has provided students with a fantastic opportunity to boost
employability and impress future employees.
James Warnock, a Northumbria Law School graduate and future
Endeavour Partnership trainee, said: “Contributing to the blog proved
invaluable in terms of boosting my employability. In interviews, I was able
New Associate Solicitor appointment
at Newcastle Law Firm
Mincoffs Solicitors has
promoted family lawyer
Emily Cannell to the role of
Associate Solicitor.
Emily joined Mincoffs
Solicitors in 2012. After
graduating with a First
Class Honours from
Northumbria Law School,
Emily returned to her
hometown, where she
undertook a training
contract before relocating
back to the North East.
Emily deals with all
matters arising from
relationship breakdown
including divorce, financial
matters, private law
children matters and
cohabitation disputes
She is the Treasurer of the
Young Resolution (North East) Committee and is also the Young
Resolution representative on the main Resolution Committee
Elaine and Victoria
to demonstrate my business development skills by speaking about the
client publicity that I had written. My blog posts showed firms that I was
able to nurture client relationships, whilst providing added value and
marketing services in an effective and client-focused manner.”
The winner of the Routledge/ALT Teaching Law with Technology Prize
2016 will be announced at the 51st Annual Conference of the Association
of Law Teachers (ALT), of which Northumbria University are proudly
hosting.
Privatisation of the Land Registry
The Government is once again consulting on the
potential privatisation of the Land Registry, despite
strong opposition to the previous proposals. The
closing date is 26th May 2016. The government
department that has issued the consultation paper
is
Department for Business Innovation and Skills
Classified Advertising
To advertise in
the Newcastle
News please call
Julia Baskerville
on 01253 829431
Chief Executive Andy Woodhouse added ‘This is a richly deserved reward
for the contribution Emily has made to the firm’.
14 Newcastle News

At Clayton Legal your talent matters...
...so we specialise in connecting your legal talent to opportunities nationwide
Junior Personal Injury Solicitor Newcastle
My client, a well known law firm based in Newcastle are looking
Junior Personal Injury Solicitor Newcastle
for a Junior Personal Injury Solicitor to join their firm. The
successful My client, a candidate well known must law firm be a based Qualified in Newcastle Solicitor are with looking up to
three for a years Junior experience Personal of Injury dealing Solicitor with a to litigated join their case firm. load. The
Contact successful Nat candidate Tolan-Smith must nat@clayton-legal.co.uk
be a Qualified Solicitor with up to
three years experience of dealing with a litigated case Newcastle load.
Personal Contact M Nat Injury Tolan-Smith Solicitor nat@clayton-legal.co.uk Newcastle
My client, a leading expert in their field, are looking for an
Personal Injury Solicitor
Newcastle
experienced Personal Injury Solicitor to join their firm based in
Newcastle. My client, a The leading successful expert candidate in their must field, have are looking experience for an of
dealing experienced with a Personal litigated caseload Injury Solicitor confidently to join and their be firm a Qualified based in
Solicitor Newcastle. with The over successful three years candidate PQE. must have experience
Newcastle
of
Contact dealing with a litigated caseload confidently and be a Qualified
M Nat Tolan-Smith nat@clayton-legal.co.uk
Solicitor with over three years PQE.
Higher Contact Rights Nat Tolan-Smith Advocate nat@clayton-legal.co.uk Newcastle
My client, a reputable law firm based in Newcastle are looking
Higher Rights Advocate
Newcastle
for a Higher Rights Solicitor to join their team. The successful
candidate My client, a must reputable be a Qualified law firm based Solicitor in Newcastle with Higher are Rights looking of
Audience for a Higher with Rights a minimum Solicitor of to three join years their team. experience. The successful
candidate must be a Qualified Solicitor with Higher Newcastle
Contact Nat Tolan-Smith nat@clayton-legal.co.uk Rights of
Audience M with a minimum of three years experience.
Police Contact Station Nat Tolan-Smith Representative nat@clayton-legal.co.uk Newcastle
My client, a well regarded Criminal law firm in Newcastle are
Police Station Representative
Newcastle
looking for a Police Station Accredited Representative to join
their My client, team.Candidates a well regarded will Criminal only be law considered firm in Newcastle if they have are
proven looking experience for a Police in Station this role. Accredited Representative Newcastle to join
Contact their team.Candidates
M Nat Tolan-Smith will nat@clayton-legal.co.uk
only be considered if they have
proven experience in this role.
Residential Contact Nat Tolan-Smith Conveyancer nat@clayton-legal.co.uk Cleveland
Our client a well established Law firm is looking to recruit a
Residential Conveyancer
Cleveland
Residential Conveyancer to join their successful Newcastle team in
Cleveland. M
Our client a In well order established to be considered Law firm for is the looking role candidates to recruit a
will Residential be a paralegal, Conveyancer Legal Executive, to join their Licenced successful Conveyancer team or in
Qualified Cleveland. Solicitor In order to with be considered a demonstrable for the background role candidates in
Conveyancing.
will be a paralegal, Legal Executive, Licenced Conveyancer or
Contact
Qualified Laura Nat
Solicitor
Tolan-Smith Baron with lb@clayton-legal.co.uk
a
nat@clayton-legal.co.uk
demonstrable background in
Conveyancing.
P Contact Laura Baron lb@clayton-legal.co.uk Newcastle
M
Where talent matters
Commercial Property Solicitor Darlington
My client, a reputable Law firm based in Darlington Newcastleis
Commercial Property Solicitor Darlington
M looking for a Commercial Property Solicitor to join their
team My client, in Darlington. a reputable The Law successful firm based candidate in Darlington must be is a
Qualified looking for Commercial a Commercial Property Property Solicitor, Solicitor with a to minimum join their of
two team years in Darlington. PQE. The successful candidate must be a
Qualified Commercial Property Solicitor, with Darlington a minimum of
Contact Nat Laura Tolan-Smith Baron lb@clayton-legal.co.uk
nat@clayton-legal.co.uk
two M years PQE.
P Conveyancing Contact Laura Baron Assistant lb@clayton-legal.co.uk Newcastle
M Our client a well established Law Firm is looking Newcastle for a
Conveyancing Assistant
Newcastle
M Conveyancing Assistant to join their busy Conveyancing
department Our client in a Newcastle. well established The successful Law Firm candidate is looking must for havea
proven Conveyancing experience Assistant within to a join High their Volume busy Conveyancing
Environment department in to Newcastle. be considered. The successful candidate Newcastle must have
Contact proven experience within a High Volume Conveyancing
O Nat Laura Tolan-Smith Baron lb@clayton-legal.co.uk
nat@clayton-legal.co.uk
Environment to be considered.
P Court Contact of Laura Protection Baron lb@clayton-legal.co.uk
Solicitor
Newcastle
M Our client a well established Legal 500 firm based in Newcastle
Court of Protection Solicitor
Newcastle
are looking for a Court of Protection Solicitor. To be considered
the Our ideal client candidate a well established will be an Legal experienced 500 firm based Court of in Protection Newcastle
Solicitor are looking with for a a minimum Court of of Protection two years Solicitor. PQE. To be considered
the ideal candidate will be an experienced Court Newcastle
Contact Nat Laura Tolan-Smith Baron lb@clayton-legal.co.uk
nat@clayton-legal.co.uk
of Protection
Solicitor O with a minimum of two years PQE.
P Residential Contact Laura Conveyancer
Baron lb@clayton-legal.co.uk
Newcastle Durham
M Our client a well established multi service Law firm Newcastle
are looking
Residential Conveyancer
Durham
M
to recruit an experienced Residential Conveyancer to join their
team Our client in Durham. a well established To be considered multi service candidates Law firm will are have looking a
minimum to recruit an of experienced two years Residential experience Conveyancer within a Durham high to join volume their
conveyancing team O
Durham. environment. To be considered candidates will have a
minimum of two years experience within a high volume
Contact Nat Laura Tolan-Smith Baron lb@clayton-legal.co.uk
nat@clayton-legal.co.uk
conveyancing environment.
Cleveland
P Contact Laura Baron lb@clayton-legal.co.uk
O
Residential Conveyancing Solicitor
Newcastle
Darlington
Our M client a well established Corporate Law firm are looking to
Residential Conveyancing Solicitor Newcastle
recruit an experienced Conveyancing Solicitor to join their team
in Our Newcastle. client a well To established be considered Corporate candidates Law firm are will looking have to a
minimum recruit an of experienced three years Conveyancing Post Qualified Solicitor Experience. to join their team
Contact in Newcastle.
Nat Laura Tolan-Smith Baron To be lb@clayton-legal.co.uk
considered
nat@clayton-legal.co.uk
candidates will have a
minimum of three years Post Qualified Experience.
P Contact Laura Baron lb@clayton-legal.co.uk Newcastle
Cleveland
Newcastle
M O
v
M O
For For more more on these on these and and other other vacancies please contact Clayton Legal
telephone: 01772 259121
telephone: 01772 259121
email: enquiries@clayton-legal.co.uk
email: enquiries@clayton-legal.co.uk
O
visit our website: www.clayton-legal.co.uk
M
O
Cleveland
Newcastle
visit our website: www.clayton-legal.co.uk Newcastle
M
OM
M
O
M
O
O
M
O
R
O
O
O

conveyancing
ncing
is moving on
Times
change – so why do systems and processes seem to stay the same? You know there e must be ways of saving yourself
hassle and making your work easier, it’s just that someone e needs to make those things real. That’s where we come in.
InfoTrack is a service provider that’s challenging the norm so that conveyancing can evolve. With h us, you can carry out all
your key tasks – including ng Searches, SDLT
Submissions
s
and AP1
Transfers
– within a single website.
Times change – and we’re driving those changes, for you.
Land Registry
Searches
SDLT
AP1
To move on with InfoTrack, a
visit infotrack.co.uk/movingon
n
or call 020 7922 5777