Wikipedia:Peer review/Courts and Legal Services Act 1990/archive1
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for June 2009.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd eventually like to get it to G/FA, and I'm looking for some reviews of its current status and suggested tweaks. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 03:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Review by Ruslik.
- As a result of this and similar controversies, Alf Dubs introduced a private member's bill Can the date be specified when the bill was introduced.
- The paper (Legal Services: A Framework for the Future) was published in July 1989,[19] and had a different tone to that of the Green Papers, referring more to the requirement of legal services to be responsive to the needs of the client rather than the discipline of the market and problems with competition between branches of the legal profession. This sentence is too long and difficult to understand and should be split.
- The monopoly on starting and conducting litigation would also be removed, allowing any recognised legal authority to certify its members as fit to work as an advocate. Who had had this monopoly before? It is not clear (solicitors, barristers ?).
- From subsections 'Conveyancing' and 'Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board' is not clear if solicitors are required to obtain authorization from the above board or not? What is the role of the Legal Society in the regulation of solicitors who act as conveyancers?
- What is the difference between an authorised conveyancing practitioner and a licensed conveyancer? This whole section is confusing. For instance: The Practitioners board assumes that banks, insurance companies and building societies are by definition fit to undertake such work, while other individuals and bodies undergo a more detailed vetting process. Does this mean that everbody including solicitors and licensed conveyancers must obtain additional permission from this board?
- The Act also modifies the functions of the Director General of Fair Trading by requiring any applications from a body to be allowed to certify advocates and any rules and regulations proposed by the Lord Chancellor in relation to conveyancing to be submitted to the Director, who then advises the Lord Chancellor as to the viability of the documents. This sentence is very difficult to understand.
- Among other things this opens up judicial offices in the Supreme Court of England and Wales to solicitors rather than just barristers. What judical offices? The jugges had been appointed by invitation until 2005.
- Indeed, but previously judges had only been barristers. By publishing a series of requirements for each post that didn't include a call to the Bar, the field was opened for solicitors as well. I'll do the rest later on (I'm at work, in a firm of solicitors appropriately). Ironholds (talk) 09:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- The Act inserts a new clause into the Solicitors Act 1974 which expands the definition of what a solicitor requiring a practising certificate is to include any solicitor who works for a firm in a way related to legal services and is employed by: I do not understand what this means. The sentence is too complicated.
- This can be in relation to on what terms the pupillage/tenancy is offered, the arrangements made for who should be offered the pupillage/tenancy or the benefits, services and facilities which are "afforded or denied". This sentence is also difficult to understand.
- Section 101 of the Act amends the Arbitration Act 1950 to allow the High Court to appoint arbitrators to panels of 3 arbitrators where one has not been selected within a reasonable time. Please, clarify what 'the panel of 3 arbitrators' is. By the way numbers less then 10 should be spelled out.
- The last sentence is the article reads At the same time the clause on recovery of costs in civil cases came into force with the SI ", and is obviously incomplete.
- I think that short subsections near the end of the article (especially in 'Part IV: solicitors' section) should be consolidated.
- I also noticed that 'also' is used too often in the article.
- In 'References'. I think LEGAL UPDATE (and other such titles) should not be written in capital letters.