OF THE LAW SOCIETY OF SCOTLAND - The Journal Online

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Journal People Macleod & MacCallum Karen Elizabeth Cowan and Roderick Kenneth MacLean Mowat Dean Lesley-Anne Barnes Morton Fraser From left to right: Sue Hunter, John Lunn, Lorne Byatt, Susan Younger, Roderick Alexander and Innes Clark May 2002 Volume 47 No 5 18 MACLEOD & MacCALLUM, Inverness, are pleased to announce that as from 1st April 2002 Karen Elizabeth Cowan and Roderick Kenneth MacLean have both joined the firm as associates. McQUITTYS, Cupar, intimate that with effect from 30th April 2002 George McQuitty has retired from the partnership. The business has been acquired by William Walls and Mr McQuitty continues to be associated with the firm as a consultant. The firm name remains unchanged. MITCHELLS ROBERTON, Glasgow, intimate that with effect from 1st March 2002 their partner Craig Dunbar resigned from the partnership. He is taking a career break and the partners wish him well. The Partners of MORTON FRASER, Edinburgh, are delighted to intimate the assumption of three new partners with effect from 1st May 2002. They are Susan Younger, John Lunn and Innes Clark. They further intimate that D. John McNeil has retired as a partner of the firm with effect from 30th April 2002. He remains as a consultant to the firm for six months from 1st May 2002. MOWAT DEAN, Edinburgh, are pleased to intimate that with effect from 4th April 2002, Lesley-Anne Barnes was appointed as an associate of the firm. GEO. & JAS. OLIVER,WS, Hawick, intimate the retiral of Michael Henry David Armstrong, WS, as a partner with effect from 31st March 2002. John Anthony Lindsay Oliver, WS, and John Paterson Hunter are pleased to be continuing the firm under the same name. PAGAN OSBORNE, Cupar, Anstruther, St Andrews, Edinburgh and Dunfermline, intimate the retiral as a partner of William Low, with effect from 30th April 2002. Mr Low continues to be associated with the firm as a consultant. PROVEN & CO, Edinburgh, hereby intimate that with effect from 29th April 2002 they have relocated to 8 Manor Place, Edinburgh, EH3 7DD. The telephone and fax numbers remain the same: 0131 220 6100. Jane Rattray intimates that with effect from 31st March 2002, she resigned as a partner in BLACKLOCK THORLEY, 89 Constitution Street, Edinburgh. She has now commenced practice in EDINBURGH LAW, Barrie’s Close, 1 Parliament Square, Edinburgh, EH1 1RB. Telephone 0131 220 6600, fax 0131 225 3444, Legal Post LP-3 Edinburgh 15 and e-mail info@edinburghlaw.info. T.F. REID & DONALDSON, Paisley, intimate the retiral as a partner of Caroline Gillespie with effect from 15th April 2002. ROSS ROGERS & CO, Rutherglen, intimate that Stephen McGuire has resigned from the partnership with effect from 31st March 2002. RUSSEL & AITKEN, Edinburgh, Falkirk and Denny, are delighted to announce that Karen Joan Harvie Wright, Johnston and Mackenzie has been appointed an associate in the Litigation Department of their Edinburgh office with effect from 1st April 2002. Karen specialises in Employment Law. SKENE EDWARDS,WS, Edinburgh, are pleased to intimate the appointment with effect from 15th April 2002, of Lesley Jane Gordon as an associate of the firm. SOLICITORS DIRECT, Aberdeen, wish to intimate their change of address from 47 Albert Street, to new premises at 4 Golden Square, Aberdeen, AB11 6DA. The firm’s DX number and contact telephone numbers will remain unchanged. WRIGHT, JOHNSTON & MACKENZIE, Glasgow and Edinburgh, are delighted to announce the appointment of six new partners. Clare Neilson, Yvonne Dunn, Donna Kelly, Lindsay Kennedy, Gail Donaldson and Liam Entwistle, who have all been associates with the firm.They have been assumed as partners from 1st April 2002. Top row:Yvonne Dunn, Lindsay Kennedy, Donna Kelly Bottom row: Clare Neilson, Liam Entwistle, Gail Donaldson
Sleeping with the enemy Journal Opinion Introducing the second of our regular columnists, Professor John Sturrock QC, who argues we must look beyond conflict to a concept of “joint gain” A century and a half ago Abraham Lincoln said: “The only safe way to destroy your enemy is to make him your friend”. Whether on a local or international level, this seems easier said than done.“An eye for an eye and we all go blind,” reflected Mahatma Gandhi. As lawyers, can we preserve the vision shown by our predecessors Lincoln and Gandhi? Nelson Mandela once said: “I never sought to undermine Mr de Klerk, for the practical reason that the weaker he was, the weaker the negotiations process.To make peace with an enemy one must work with that enemy, and the enemy must become one’s partner.” The history of Mandela’s application of this theory is the recent history of South Africa. As the two sides to the apartheid conflict came together, they realised that their perceptions of each other were wrong. They came to see that there was an alternative to a white victory or a black victory – or even a split-the-difference compromise.There was a future in which to win did not mean that the other side had to lose. It was possible for all sides to benefit. Hard work and difficult, yes, but much less so than all-out bloody civil war. According to William Ury, author of an inspiring book “The Third Side:Why We Fight and How We Can Stop” (Penguin), there is a growing realisation of our need to be much more creative in our approach to conflict, whether in personal relationships, in business and commerce or in world politics. Ury identifies trends throughout the world in which a transformation of the culture of conflict is occurring, from coercion to consent and from force to mutual interest. I saw tangible evidence of this at the recent American Bar Association conference on Dispute Resolution in Seattle. There is a cultural wave sweeping through the legal profession and government bodies in the US.The lawyer’s job, as the Attorney General for Washington State put it, is about solving average problems for average people, not winning or losing – and remembering that there are two sides to almost any story. Her own example was a remarkable one. The recent mediated settlement of litigation brought collectively by the various States against the tobacco industry resulted in an “holistic” solution, viewed by parties as a mutually satisfactory outcome. A rigorous approach to the issues was accompanied by increased respect and understanding on all sides, producing a speedy, wideranging resolution of what could have been interminable conflict. In negotiation and mediation training courses, I often invite participants to take part in The Gain Game, a version of a game called The Prisoners’ Dilemma. Participants learn how easily we become competitive and seek to requite the other side for wrongs allegedly done. Trust is easily broken, and once lost is hard to regain. The urge to win at the expense of the other is strong for many. Language (careful and careless) sends messages which are easily misunderstood. Respect for the other side is replaced by antagonism. Only at the end do many discover that apparent victory can be pyrrhic and bitter-sweet, producing a relatively poor immediate outcome and an even poorer prospect of successful negotiation in the future. The perceptive players learn early (or through experience) that working collaboratively with the other side will often (nearly always) produce a better result, not only for themselves and their client but also for the other side. And it doesn’t matter if the other side also gains! Indeed, that may be the key to getting what each side really wants. The concept of “joint gain” is often a difficult one to grasp in our adversarial tradition. And yet, as Edward de Bono has pointed out, argument which merely seeks to prove that one side is right and the other side is wrong can be extremely inefficient.Working co-operatively (or in co-opetition as de Bono has described it) can generate quite novel outcomes in many conflicts. Often, however, we are constrained by our training and education, by our culture and work pressures, from thinking “out of the box”. Business and commerce is moving on. Individuals are less likely to accept things as they always were.The role of the lawyer in society is under scrutiny. Paradoxically in our rights-based culture, the future for many more lawyers is likely to be in the role of creative problemsolvers, or “solution-seekers”, assisting clients to achieve co-operative results which meet real interests rather than vindicating positions or rights. And we will find that co-operation can be contagious. jgsturrock@aol.com e: 19 May 2002 Volume 47 No 5
Page 1 and 2: VOLUME 47 NO 5 MAY 2002 THE JOURNAL
Page 3 and 4: President’s report Journal Viewpo
Page 5 and 6: Journal News Information from the R
Page 7 and 8: Journal News Obituaries LEONARD ELL
Page 9 and 10: Journal News Authors Wanted The Soc
Page 11 and 12: No increase in funding commitment W
Page 13: Photographs of people featured can
Page 17 and 18: etrospective legislation was not be
Page 19 and 20: the 2001 Act, none of the rules on
Page 21 and 22: e: MH@golds.co.uk Journal Repossess
Page 23 and 24: “Some pleasure has been expressed
Page 25 and 26: Minutes of Tender Manson v Skinner
Page 27 and 28: “Back in 1999 when I was elected
Page 29 and 30: Journal New Rules May 2002 Volume 4
Page 31 and 32: Journal President The Preston front
Page 33 and 34: Journal Websites www.scottishlaw.or
Page 35 and 36: Journal IT Opening a target in a ne
Page 37 and 38: Journal Risk Management Omissions c
Page 39 and 40: Journal e: In Practice bruceritchie
Page 41 and 42: Journal Videoconferencing May 2002
Page 43 and 44: Godard, the Academic Director for t
Page 45 and 46: I will be very happy to receive rev

OF THE LAW SOCIETY OF SCOTLAND - The Journal Online

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?