Saturday, 29 October 2011
Wednesday, 26 October 2011
89th Session of the Philosophical Foundations of Law and Finance (Friday, Oct 28st, 2011, 18:00 - 20:00, room 516, University of Westminster, 309 Regent Street, London)
Dear all,
For the 89th Session of the Philosophical Foundations of Law and Finance, and thanks to the ever eagle-eyed spotting by Edmond Curtin and Heather Roberts, we shall investigate the Note on the financial reform from the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. See: http://www.news.va/en/
In a heavy but benign anti-hypnotic antidote to what appears to be the Papal call for a global and therefore dominant political authority, we will also read from Dostoevsky’s Grand Inquisitor. BTW & IMO, the Grand Inquisitor, about 30 pages within The Brothers Karamazov, is the best piece of political-religious-spiritual writing in about 2,500 years--one of the great gifts to humanity.
In a heavy but benign anti-hypnotic antidote to what appears to be the Papal call for a global and therefore dominant political authority, we will also read from Dostoevsky’s Grand Inquisitor. BTW & IMO, the Grand Inquisitor, about 30 pages within The Brothers Karamazov, is the best piece of political-religious-spiritual writing in about 2,500 years--one of the great gifts to humanity.
Joe
Thursday, 20 October 2011
88th Session of the Philosophical Foundations of Law and Finance
Dear all,
for the 88th Session of the Philosophical Foundations of Law and Finance, I will give a brief talk on "Post-Modern Finance and Other Revolutionary Etudes." Last time, we had a strong group of poets, lawyers and investment bankers. The best part of the evening is sharing gossip. You can learn so much from indiscretion. It's a great luxury to go slow. Our pace is about one paragraph of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics per hour. Comments are unconstrained by any -ism. The sessions remind me of watching the English weather...very changeable from "hungry clouds" swaging on the deep to instantaneous transformations of exaggerated and piercing sunlight.
Room 516, 309 Regent Street, London, from 6 to 8 pm, Friday, Oct 21, 2011.
Joe
Thursday, 13 October 2011
87th Session of the Philosophical Foundations of Law and Finance
1. For the 87th Session of the Philosophical Foundations of Law and Finance, we will continue reading Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics and discuss the question:
2. Is the US Fed constitutional?
3. See John P. Hussman's brilliant little law and finance analysis at:http://www.hussmanfunds.com/wm
"Ever since the Bear Stearns bailout, I've been insistent that the Federal Reserve is increasingly operating outside of its statutory boundaries. As I noted in the March 31, 2008 weekly comment (What Congress and Investors Should Understand about the Bear Stearns Deal):
"The clear historical role of the Federal Reserve has been to manage the composition of Federal liabilities (by varying the mix of Treasury securities and monetary base - currency and bank reserves - held by the public). The recent transaction is a dangerous break from that role, in which unelected bureaucrats are committing public funds to facilitate private business transactions and selectively defend the holders of corporate securities. Only Congress has the Constitutional right, by the representative will of the people, to commit public funds. The Bear Stearns deal is a dangerous precedent and a dilution of Congressional prerogative.""
4. Venue: room 516, University of Westminster, 309 Regent Street, London.
5. Date and time: Friday, Oct 14th 2011, 18:00 - 20:00
6. Dinner at The Galleria from 20:30 at 17 New Cavendish St.
7. RSVP jnjtanega@gmail.com or text 07748186880.
2. Is the US Fed constitutional?
3. See John P. Hussman's brilliant little law and finance analysis at:http://www.hussmanfunds.com/wm
"Ever since the Bear Stearns bailout, I've been insistent that the Federal Reserve is increasingly operating outside of its statutory boundaries. As I noted in the March 31, 2008 weekly comment (What Congress and Investors Should Understand about the Bear Stearns Deal):
"The clear historical role of the Federal Reserve has been to manage the composition of Federal liabilities (by varying the mix of Treasury securities and monetary base - currency and bank reserves - held by the public). The recent transaction is a dangerous break from that role, in which unelected bureaucrats are committing public funds to facilitate private business transactions and selectively defend the holders of corporate securities. Only Congress has the Constitutional right, by the representative will of the people, to commit public funds. The Bear Stearns deal is a dangerous precedent and a dilution of Congressional prerogative.""
4. Venue: room 516, University of Westminster, 309 Regent Street, London.
5. Date and time: Friday, Oct 14th 2011, 18:00 - 20:00
6. Dinner at The Galleria from 20:30 at 17 New Cavendish St.
7. RSVP jnjtanega@gmail.com or text 07748186880.
Joe
Friday, 19 August 2011
...And Complaints Can Be Bad for You
In my previous post, I vainly hoped lawyers could learn from the complaints process they now have to follow. Unfortunately (h/t to Legal Futures) they haven't quite absorbed the lessons. This is definitely a case of being placed on the naughty step.
Two law firms refused to follow the Legal Ombudsman's orders to compensate clients. The result was the LeO went to court to get enforcement orders with the consequence that in addition to paying the compensation the firms had to pay the LeO's court costs.
Stupid? I think so. Law firms aren't going to get anywhere by being adversarial. As the LeO says:
“The cases are a reminder that ombudsman decisions, once accepted by complainants, are binding. Lawyers need to remember that our decisions are enforceable through the courts and that failure to comply promptly can mean an unnecessary expense.I'm sure the legal profession must be thinking the world is conspiring against it. All we need is the next step to name the law firms. They should have warning stickers.
“Those who don’t comply are likely to have to pay costs ordered by the courts, and risk being referred by us on conduct grounds to their regulatory body.”
Tuesday, 16 August 2011
Complaints Can Be Good for You...
The SRA's starting point is clear
A perception of poor complaints handling by the legal profession was one of the drivers for the Legal Services Act 2007 (LSA). In response, a fundamental requirement of the LSA is that approved regulators must ensure legal service providers have effective procedures in place for the resolution of complaints. Section 112(1) of the Act also requires an approved regulator to make provision for the enforcement of those requirements.This is the result of the Legal Services Board's YouGov research on complaints handling, which ought to be compulsory reading for all lawyers. So the SRA will now require law firms to collect data on first-tier complaints in a new way.
The SRA, following the Financial Ombudsman Service approach, will use the data to construct waves and trends of complaints to allow it to see if there are systemic issues in complaints. The data will also inform the SRA that it has a problem with law firms that aren't handling their complaints properly. (You can see how the Financial Ombudsman Service analyzes its data here.)
This is all part of the risk-based approach to regulation now in train. My guess is that lawyers may well be in for a shock when they start seeing the results of the analyses.
My ever-eager curiosity also wonders how much--if any--of these data will be made public. Some redaction might be needed, but it should be there in the public domain, so at least we could see if things are improving.
Friday, 12 August 2011
Google Law!
(thanks to thegioiseo.com)
It's happened. Google has entered the law business! Google has invested in Rocket Lawyer according to Forbes magazine which says Rocket Lawyer has 70,000 users a day. Paul Lippe also covers this at the New Normal.
I've been giving presentations for the past couple of years where I have always finished with a picture of Google's logo and said, "There's the world's next biggest law firm. Beat that if you can." It was usually met with disbelief.
Google analyzes information very well and law is information. At some level there will be the need for sophisticated interpretation via human thought but for how much longer?
First it was Tesco Law and now it's Google Law!
Rock on....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)