Indian Self Determination Act 1975 Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Indian Self Determination Act 1975 - Essay Example (Indian Country Today 2005). At different times they ranged from extremes of conservative ideology (termination) to liberal (trust status bureaucracy) making it almost impossible for Indian community leaders to adequately plan and execute successful strategies. This Act promised a more Indian driven approach of self-determination to enhance the stability and improvement of social and economic conditions for the Indian people.. Within federal law it provided for maximum participation for Indians in their own governance and education. Certainly economically the policy has proven to be a success since in the 90s Indian per capita income has risen 33 percent compared to the national US rate of 11 percent. However, in 2000 per capita income was still less than half of the US average. Nevertheless in the last decade of the 20th century there was a striking improvement in education and housing as well as income. Although Indian per capita income gained 49 percent in the 1970s, this was prim arily due to government grants, which have been decimated by subsequent administrations. This source of income has been replaced by Indian generated made possible by the above Act and subsequent legislation such as the 1988 Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Effect of the Act After the Indian Self Determination Act of 1975 some tribes took advantage of the later Indian Gaming Regulatory Act to set up profitable gaming facilities such as bingo halls. Therefore some people assume that improved Indian economic conditions were due to the advent of the gaming operations. However other tribes such as the Navajo also improved their economic prospects without going into gaming (Indian Country Today 2005) Therefore, I submit increased Indian prosperity was due fundamentally to the enabling 1975 legislation, and the operation of gaming facilities was only one of many paths to this increased prosperity. Even before the 1975 Act the first contemporary Indian controlled school was established by the Navajo in 1966 as a departure from the assimilation model to one in which education was based on their own cultural and linguistic needs (Tippeconnic 2000). The success of this educational initiative formed the blueprint for the 1975 Act giving similar rights to all tribes and was as important as the concurrent gaining of land, water and governance rights. The advent of Indian controlled schools has resulted in improved academic achievement, lower drop out rates and more students succeeding at the post secondary level. Indian schools without federal funding naturally have the greatest control over their curriculum, but of course more limited resources. While the 1975 Act promotes a policy of Indian self-determination, some communities still resent this and feel Indians must assimilate into the dominant culture. Also, although the 1975 Act was intended to give Indians a great degree of self-determination, they are still subject to federal legal jurisdiction even for local issues. For example, a Navajo Supreme Court ruled in about 2000 that it lacked jurisdiction in an employment case because the school board involved was funded with grants from the Bureau of Indian Affairs.(Tohtsin 2001) Therefore any suit against the school board must be brought in federal court rather than the Navajo Supreme Court. Conclusion In spite of those people including some politicians, who feel that Indians should abandon their own culture and

Descriptive statistic Essay Example for Free

Descriptive statistic Essay Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics about the 74 models of automobiles released in the year 1978, these include the automobiles’ price, mileage, repair record, headroom, trunk space, weight, length, turn circle, displacement and the gear ratio with its corresponding results. In terms of automobiles’ price, it ranges to $3,291.00 up to $15,906.00 for the period of the said year. Its average price is $6,165.26 with a standard deviation of $2,949.50. It can be seen that prices are not close by to one another. With regards to mileage, the majority of the automobiles runs 41 miles for every gallon of gasoline, while the least runs only for 12 miles. The mean of mileage has resulted to 21.30 mpg, with a standard deviation of 5.79 mpg. As to the variable repair record it can be seen that only 69 were observed out of the 74 automobiles. The highest occurrence of repairs made is five times, whereas the least occurs only one time. The average repair recorded is 3.41 times while its standard deviation is only .98. It is also seen the data about the portion of automobiles’ headroom in inches. The automobile recorded with the largest headroom has 5 inches size however the smallest only got 1.5 inches. Further, the average headroom is 2.99 inches, changing at a standard deviation of .85. Respectively, the trunk of automobiles is given measured in cubic feet. The largest trunk noted has a 23 cu. ft. of space, on the other hand the least has a size of 5 cu. ft. The mean size of the trunk got a 13.76 cu. ft. having a standard deviation of 4.28 cu. ft. The automobiles’ weight resulted with the heaviest model got a 4,840 lbs. while the lightest among them weighs 1,760 lbs. The average weight of automobiles recorded is 3.019.46 lbs. A standard deviation of 777.19. While the measurement of automobiles’ length got a longest and shortest measure of 233 inches and 142 inches, respectively. The average length of the automobiles is 187.93 inches with a standard deviation of 22.27 inches. The highest measure of turn circles gathered is 51 ft. while, the lowest gathered measure is 31 ft. The average measurement of turn circles is 39.65 ft. varying at a standard deviation of 4.40 ft. As to the measurement of the displacement, the highest got a size of 425 cu. in. and the least got a size of 79 cu. in. The average measurement is 197.30 cu. in. and a standard  deviation of 91.84 in.cu. The gear ratio shows a result that its average/mean is 3.01. It ranges to 2.19 up to 3.89 with a standard deviation of .46.

Ministerial responsibility is the cornerstone

Ministerial responsibility is the cornerstone In medieval times, the royal will was signified in documents bearing royal seal and was applied by one of the King’s ministers. Maitland has described this practice as being â€Å"the foundation for our modern doctrine of ministerial responsibility – that for every exercise of the royal power some minister is answerable†[1]. This essay will consider the modern doctrine of ministerial responsibility and examine the extent to which it forms, in modern political times, the cornerstone of accountability in the UK constitution. The convention of ministerial responsibility has been described by Loveland as â€Å"perhaps the most important non-legal rule within our constitution†[2]. The convention may be said to be concerned with regulating the conduct of government activities, both in respect of Ministers’ relations with each other, and with the two Houses of Parliament[3]. Ministerial responsibility comprises of two branches: collective responsibility and individual responsibility[4]. Collective ministerial responsibility may be further reduced into three main rules: the confidence rule; the unanimity rule, and; the confidentiality rule[5]. Through the operation of these rules, Ministers of the Government all appear to others to share the same policy opinions, whatever their own personal views. They are therefore collectively responsible for any decisions made by the Government and the Government as a whole should resign if it loses confidence. The doctrine of collective responsibility was stated in 2005 in the following form: â€Å"Collective responsibility requires that Ministers should be able to express their views frankly in the expectation that they can argue freely in private while maintaining a united front when decisions have been reached. This in turn requires that the privacy of opinions expressed in Cabinet and Ministerial Committees should be maintained.†[6] It therefore follows that where a Minister does not wish to be publicly accountable to Parliament and the electorate for a Governmental decision, he should resign from the Government. This occurred, for example, when Robin Cooke resigned over the Labour Government’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003[7]. Collective ministerial responsibility allows all members of Government to be accountable as a whole, thus avoiding arguments and blame-shifting between different Ministers and Departments. In this way, collective responsibility enhances the accountability of Government. Individual ministerial responsibility is the convention that a Minister answers to Parliament for his department, with praise and blame being addressed to the minister and not civil servants[8]. It has been said that â€Å"the fundamental purpose of the convention of individual ministerial responsibility is that it provides an important means of drawing information into the public domain†[9] The principle has often been associated with the idea that ministers must resign in cases of official wrongdoing[10] but it also encompasses Ministers’ on-going obligations to account to Parliament for their departments’ work[11]. However, in 2000, Jowell and Oliver suggested that ministerial responsibility to Parliament had been â€Å"significantly weakened over the last ten years or so†¦ so that it can no longer be said, in our view, that it is a fundamental doctrine of the constitution†[12]. Their opinion may have been influenced by the structural changes in government. During the 20th century tasks of the state expanded and vast Whitehall departments were created, with the effect that ministers could not oversee all aspects of the departments’ work[13]. Executive ‘Next Steps’ agencies created since 1988 had the specific purpose of delegating managerial power. Indeed, as Turner states: â€Å"Ministerial responsibility, however, is a different matter in the modern era. It has shrunk, it seems, almost to nothing, thanks, in no small part, to the creation of â€Å"independent† agencies to undertake the work of government.†[14] Where civil servants have great authority, the question arises as to what extent a Minister is responsible for any acts of maladministration, and whether maladministration results in a duty to resign. Is it fair to hold the Minister responsible? If not, who should be and how does this affect accountability? As Tomkins notes, during the Major Government’s office from 1990 to 1997 â€Å"Ministers and senior civil servants†¦ proposed a number of initiatives that sought significantly to undermine the tenets of individual responsibility†[15]. It was claimed that Ministers were responsible only for those decisions in which they were directly and personally involved. Michael Howard claimed, after serious failings leading to Prison escapes, that Ministers were responsible to Parliament only for policy matters, with â€Å"operational† failings falling outside the scope of individual responsibility[16]. Furthermore, it was argued that where Ministers had misled Parliament, they should resign only if they had done so knowingly rather than inadvertently[17]. In this way Ministerial responsibility was weakened, with accountability becoming more prominent. A minister may be said to be accountable to Parliament for everything which occurs in a department, having a duty to inform Parliament about the policies and decision of the department and to announce when something has gone wrong. However, this does not bring with it responsibility in the sense that the Minister takes the blame. In 1997 the Ministerial Code reformulated ministerial responsibility to the effect that: Ministers must uphold the principle of collective responsibility; (b) Ministers have a duty to Parliament to account, and be held to account, for the policies, decisions and actions of their departments and agencies; (c) it is of paramount importance that Ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity. Ministers who knowingly mislead Parliament will be expected to offer their resignation to the Prime Minister; (d) Ministers should be as open as possible with Parliament, refusing to provide information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest†¦; (e) Ministers should similarly require civil servants who give evidence before Parliamentary Committees on their behalf and under their direction to be as helpful as possible in providing accurate, truthful and full information†¦[18] This new formulation would suggest that it is now ministerial accountability rather than responsibility which forms the cornerstone of accountability in the UK constitution. Unless there is fully open Government, there may be situations which arise where no person will take responsibility for actions and Ministers’ relationship with the Civil Service will be fundamentally changed. As Hennessy points out: â€Å"For the Civil Service the buck-stopping question is of crucial importance. Under the doctrine of ministerial responsibility, ministers are the ultimate can-carriers for everything done by the civil service in their name†[19]. This will no longer be the case where a Minister’s responsibility ends with alerting Parliament to a problem. Bibliography Allen, M. Thompson, B., Cases and Materials on Constitutional and Administrative Law, 9th Edition, (2008), OUP Bamforth, N., â€Å"Political accountability in play: the Budd Inquiry and David Blunkett’s resignation†, (2005), Public Law, 229 Bradley, A.W. Ewing, K.D., Constitutional and Administrative Law, 14th Edition (2007), Pearson Longman Brazier, R., â€Å"It is a Constitutional Issue: Fitness for Ministerial Office in the 1990s†, (1994), Public Law, 431 Cooke, R., The Point of Departure (2003), Simon and Schuster Hansard, HC cols 31-46 (January 10, 1995) Hennessy, P., Whitehall, (1989), Secker Warburg Hough, B., â€Å"Ministerial responses to parliamentary questions: some recent concerns†, (2003), Public Law, 211 Jowell, J. Oliver, D., The Changing Constitution, 4th Edition, (2000), OUP Lewis, N. Longley, D., â€Å"Ministerial Responsibility: The Next Steps†, (1996), Public Law, 490 Loveland, I., Constitutional Law, Administrative Law, and Human Rights: A Critical Introduction, 4th Edition, (2006), OUP, Maitland, Constitutional History, Marshall, G., Constitutional Conventions, (1984) Ministerial Code: a Code of Ethics and Procedural Guidance for Ministers (reissued, July 2005) Tomkins, A., The Constitution after Scott: Government Unwrapped, (1998), Clarendon Tomkins, A., Public Law, (2003), OUP Turner, A., â€Å"Losing heads over the lost data†, (2007), 171, Justice of the Peace, 841 1 Footnotes [1] Maitland, Constitutional History, pg 203 [2] Loveland, I., Constitutional Law, Administrative Law, and Human Rights: A Critical Introduction, 4th Edition, (2006), OUP, pg 306 [3] Loveland, ibid, pg 306 [4] Allen, M. Thompson, B., Cases and Materials on Constitutional and Administrative Law, 9th Edition, (2008), OUP, pg 251 [5] Marshall, G., Constitutional Conventions, (1984), pg 55-56 [6] Ministerial Code: a Code of Ethics and Procedural Guidance for Ministers (reissued, July 2005), para 6.17 [7] Cooke, R., The Point of Departure, pg 115 [8] Bradley, A.W. Ewing, K.D., Constitutional and Administrative Law, 14th Edition (2007), Pearson Longman, pg 114 [9] Hough, B., â€Å"Ministerial responses to parliamentary questions: some recent concerns†, (2003), Public Law, 211 [10] See e.g. Lewis, N. Longley, D., â€Å"Ministerial Responsibility: The Next Steps†, (1996), Public Law, 490; Brazier, R., â€Å"It is a Constitutional Issue: Fitness for Ministerial Office in the 1990s†, (1994), Public Law, 431 [11] Bamforth, N., â€Å"Political accountability in play: the Budd Inquiry and David Blunkett’s resignation†, (2005), Public Law, 229 [12] Jowell, J. Oliver, D., The Changing Constitution, 4th Edition, (2000), OUP, p. viii [13] Bradley Ewing, ibid, pg 114 [14] Turner, A., â€Å"Losing heads over the lost data†, (2007), 171, Justice of the Peace, 841 [15] Tomkins, A., Public Law, (2003), OUP, pg 140-141 [16] Hansard, HC cols 31-46 (January 10, 1995) [17] Tomkins, A., The Constitution after Scott: Government Unwrapped, (1998), Clarendon, pg 41-45 [18] HC Deb, 19 March 1997, col 1046 [19] Hennessy, P., Whitehall, (1989), Secker Warburg, pg 502

Antigone :: essays research papers

"Antigone" the play written by Sophocles deals with moral law vs civil law. King Creon has condemned Princess Antgione. Antgione went against the king’s decree and buried her brother Ploynices. Antgione now will be punished by starvation under King Creon’s decree. Antigone is a passionate, strong willed, and determined women. Antigone is a passionate character in the play we see this as we learn of her as we see her put moral law above civil law. An important ideal in Ancient Greece was the belief that the government was to have no control in matters concerning religious beliefs. In Antigone's eyes, Creon betrayed that ideal by not allowing her to properly bury her brother, Polynices. She believed that the burial was a religious ceremony, and Creon did not have the power to deny Polynices that right. Antigone is ready to defy Creons decree and do what she feels in her heart is right we see this when she says "Will you life up his body with these bare hand s and lower it with me? ". Threw out the play Antigone is strong willed. She doesn’t want Ismene to explain the law to her. When she asks Ismene to help her with the burial of Ploynice, Ismene says no. When Ismene tries to convince Antigone to not defy Creons decree Antigone tells her "I won’t insist no, even if you should have a change in heart, I’d never welcome you in the labor, not with me. So, do as you like, whatever suits you best- I’ll bury him myself.". Antigone is not willing to give up with out a fight and she isnt going to let anyone get in her way. Antigone is one of the strong willed characters in this play. When she is done burring her brother, after all the torment she has endured she says "My reverence only brands me for irreverence!". Antigone isn’t sorry even though by doing the right thing she will be put to death by starvation in a tomb. She is obeying the law of the gods rather then the law of Creon. W hen Antigone takes matters in to her own hands and does what is right ,that shows strong soul . Having a strong sense of moral law in Greek mythology will lead to a good after life.

Explain what is meant by natural law Essay

Natural moral law contains ethical theories which express that there is a natural order to our world that should be followed. A quote from Cicero, De Republica elaborates on the idea that natural law ethics is a universal and a prescriptive ethical theory, â€Å"The law will not lay down one rule in Rome and another in Athens†¦ There will be one law eternal and unchangeable, binding at all times upon all people†. Natural law suggests deontological and absolutist ideas although there seems to be some form of flexibility. The natural order, according to the theory, which humans supposedly obtain, is from some supernatural power. Natural law relies on human reason and how we interpret different situations and acting accordingly; if all humans share this similar reasoning then we must all bare the same ethical code. The earliest date that has been found of a theory of natural law appeared amongst Stoics. It explains how all humans have something within that aids them to live according to nature. Interestingly the early theories state that humans have a choice in abiding by laws but they must use their reason to understand and decide to abide or not. This differs slightly from Thomas Aquinas’ view as he believes in precepts that must be abided by. Aristotle’s ideas can be tied with natural law, such as the 4 causes. Aristotle explains in his work that every object has a specific nature, purpose and function. It is based on the religious conviction that God created the world, creating a sense of order and purpose to reflect his will. Furthermore, he believes that every object has a supreme good, for humans that are happiness. A sowing needle can be used as an example of supreme purpose, its purpose is thread though materials but it’s supreme good is to thread though a material as effort as possible by being as sharp as it can be. Aristotle believes that the supreme good for humans is to flourish in society and to live a life of reason. This is the same reason that humans must use to guide them though decisions in their life. Also in Aristotle’s work he says â€Å"the natural is that which everywhere is is equally valid, and depends not upon being or not being received†¦Ã¢â‚¬â„¢ what Aristotle means here is that natural law exists whether or not we accept it , it will always be there for eternity. St Thomas Aquinas’ theory of natural law was mainly influence by the works of Aristotle and Plato. Aquinas’ was a Christian philosopher and theologian who developed a fuller account of the natural law. He describes natural law as a moral code existing within the purpose of nature that reflects Gods law, in a sense it is am aid to allow humans to achieve Gods given laws. Aristotle’s idea of purpose may have influenced him to expand on the idea. Aquinas’ theory of natural law differs from ‘divine command theory’ as Natural law is more accessible to all and it relies on reason. Furthermore Aquinas’ theory evaluates both acts and attitude as it allows humans to glorify God an express what a good God is. Like Aristotle, Aquinas explains how humans aim for a purpose but unlike Aristotle who believes this is happiness, he believes all humans are ‘made in the image of God’. Therefore the supreme good must be the development of this image of God, which is perfection. This perfection, according to Aquinas was not possible to be achieved in this life but only in the next life and the purpose of morality is to allow us to fulfill our desires. A fundamental part of his theory Is to achieve as much good as possible and avoiding evil. He believes this because we were created for one purpose and that is perfection . Aquinas believed that there was no such thing as evil as we are all made in the image of God, therefore it is logical for Aquinas to say humans do not carry out evil but apparent goods. For example if a person commits adultery he or she believes that it is good , although this is an error of reason they have apparently done the right thing according to them. Aquinas’ theory of natural law greatly stresses the fact that our nature is knowable and we need to use our reason to know it and understand it. The fundamental primary principles of natural law are of great importance to Aquinas’s theory. They are always true and always apply to everyone. They are: the preservation of life, continuation of species, educating children, lives in society and worshiping God, which is the most important. Although some aspects of these precepts can be debatable, masturbation is against the primary precept as it does not preserve life. But then one can rebuttal and say that rape would be acceptable as it preserving life. The secondary precepts are more flexible and realistic; they are a specific application of primary precepts, such as; do not murder and defend the defenseless. Such examples do not need working out the moral code as they take into account our human limitations and weaknesses, therefore they are presented as relatively straight forward. ‘Natural law is unjust’ Discuss In my opinion there is no ethical theory that pleases everyone, there is bound to one or more flaws. Such theories that have been worked on very many years ago prove hard to search for answers concerning our modern world. Natural law finds it exceedingly challenging to relate to complex decisions to basic principles, for example ; should more money be spent helping charities or on hospitals. It leaves one stuck between two options. Abortion would be considered against the natural ethic code. Having an abortion is stopping life and limiting reproduction, against ‘many and multiply’. But putting abortion in the context of saving a life shows a different perspective. If the mother was in a situation where she would not be able to supporting a child, surely that would benefit instead create life that would suffer. Another topic that is disputable is contraception. Similarly with contraception it is prohibiting new life but then again it can be for the greater good. For example protected sex prevents sexually transmitted diseases. Furthermore a weakness to natural moral law according to Aquinas’ is that it assumes everyone carries out good acts, I find this slightly deluded and optimistic. I find hard to believe that acts such as rape an apparent good, surely one who carries out such an action knows that this is wrong; some people may want to be perceived as evil for unknown reasons. Different societies have different natural values therefore it is hard accepting one universal law. Among the weaknesses, there are several strengths to natural law. It does give a concise, clear-cut approach to morality and establishing common rules which day to day topics can be related to. It has a fairly positive approach by mainly concentrating on the potential goodness than the wrong. Furthermore Natural law concentrates on the character of humans and there potential for goodness rather than the right or wrong decisions on certain acts, it attempts to bring the best out of a situation, it proves to allow some degree of flexibility. It also emphasizes the fulfillment of our natures, all the things we require for happiness – health, friends, the purpose of our existence and morality. Some aspects of natural law I believe to be unjust, such as abortion for the greater good. It seems to be a very optimistic ethical view, which seeks only the good in humans, but in a sense it seems to shun bad as a whole which In my opinion is unjust.

The Advantages and Disadvantages of Conditional Fee Arrangements for Legal Aid

The conditional fee arrangement was introduced by the Access to Justice Act (AJA) 1999, as an attempt to transfer legal funding from the treasury to the private sector. This occurred as a result of an increasing and ridiculous growth in the cost of legal aid, namely from a few hundred million to well over 2. 1 billion pounds from the 1980s to 2000. Moreover, it was not because demand was growing. Rather, number of cases relying on legal aid had decreased.Due to the need to control budget, Conditional fee arrangements are used to fund many civil cases which legal aid now excludes, and the issues brought about by conditional fee arrangements have been debated over the last decade. The conditional fee arrangements are sometime known as ‘no win, no fee’ agreements, which are not used for family or criminal matters, but can be used in many types of civil action. The no win no fee concept was first introduced in the UK under the Solicitors Conditional Fee Agreements act in 199 5.The primary reason for the no win no fee system was to make sure that individuals who did not qualify for legal aid could still make personal injury claims, regardless of their personal situation. Section 58 of the Courts and legal Services Act (CLSA) 1990 permitted the Lord Chancellor to introduce conditional fee arrangements. By 2000 legal aid was actually abolished for personal injury claims, resulting in the no win no fee personal injury claim system being the normal system that most claims work under.The beauty of the policy is that if you do not win your case, you are not required to pay any sort of fees to your no win no fee solicitor. Instead, the insurance will cover any costs and expenses of all parties involved, including your no win no fee lawyer. This allows you the safety and security of knowing that even if you are someone who is financially struggling, you still have the right to make a claim, and you will not have to pay if you for some reason lose your case. If y ou happen to win your case, you will automatically be compensated for 100 per cent of the fees attached to the personal injury claim.The purpose of the system is to make sure that everyone involved is covered by the insurance companies. The only fees which are potentially applicable to a person filing a claim are exceptional circumstances or medical negligence cases, which will need to be discussed in advance with your lawyer. Admittedly, based on my research, the only groups of individuals who have really benefitted from this scheme are the lawyers, the claims management companies (CMCs), the banks and the insurance companies, which, is typically the supplier base for this system.In contrast, the consumers themselves have little but complaints, even though the Conditional Fee Arrangement were targeted to helping them in the first place. The introduction of Lord Justice Jackson’s report this year 2010 is new and the effects have not been visible in the current market, though we may look at the theoretical and legal implications that such an upheaval in the Conditional Fee Arrangement this would bring. A major benefit of Conditional Fee Agreements is that it allows many people access to justice, and in addition does not have to receive any funding from the Government leaving them free to fund more serious civil cases.Because of agreements like these many people have been able to take their cases to court, all that is required is that the client buys insurance against losing a case. If this requirement is met then it is unlikely that the case will not be taken on by a Solicitor. The Solicitor is also likely to work harder on the clients behalf because it has invested interest. This will then result in more competition between Solicitors and as a consequence of this, the client receiving a better service.A Conditional Fee Arrangement provides access to the courts for those who cannot afford to pay the attorneys fees and costs of civil litigation. Contingen cy fees also provide a powerful motivation to the attorney to work diligently on the client's case. In other types of litigation where clients pay the attorney by the hour for their time, it makes little economic difference to the attorney whether the client has a successful outcome to the litigation. Finally, because lawyers assume the financial risk of litigation, the number of speculative or unmeritorious cases may be reduced.In terms of access to justice, Conditional Fee Arrangement have provided for many who could not qualify for legal aid. From 2000-2005 alone, personal injury cases saw a jump in a million consumers seeking redress Conditional Fee Arrangement. This is likely because of a few reasons. For one, the strict means test introduced by the Access to Justice AJA 1999 has led to the middle income group not qualifying for legal aid, but they are not able to afford legal services either. Secondly, the Access to Justice AJA 1999 has taken away certain civil cases from its funding, personal injury as an example.Thirdly, claims management companies CMCs have been actively educating the masses as to seeking redress for personal injury cases especially, thus promoting a culture that citizens fight for their rights, and the Conditional Fee Arrangement is one avenue that they can do it for free. The statistics speak for themselves. Especially in road traffic accidents, sometimes it is not proportional the damage to apply for legal advice but now it is made possible without the burden of bearing those legal costs. Conditional Fee Arrangement has increased accessibility to justice in a way that legal aid with a budget can never provide.In terms of cost, in particular the success fee, it has been said to be an incentive, the only incentive for lawyers to ever enter into a Conditional Fee Arrangement. A huge risk of not being paid a cent should equally mean that there should be a larger chance to earn more. Lawyers themselves are taking this risk and in order to maintain a supplier base, a success fee is a must. Currently, the success fee stands at any bonus amounting to up to 100% of the normal legal fees. However, it does not mean that it is up to the lawyer’s whims and fancies to set the percentage.This sum is decided in an agreement between the lawyer and the insurance company, based on the chance of success in a case. Opposition to this has argued that the success fee leads to perverse profits, but statistics show otherwise. Since implementation of Conditional Fee Arrangement, two large firms of claims management companies CMCs have gone bankrupt within a short span of 4 years and this makes us wonder whether doing Conditional Fee Arrangement are way more profitable than regular legal work. The advantages can be summarized as: †¢Lawyers acting in any case will be confident and determined.They will have had to weigh carefully the chances of success before taking the case as their fee depends on winning. †¢There will be freedom from anxiety of having to pay huge fees. †¢There will be no need to pay fees in advance. †¢There will be no delays or worries with legal aid applications. A major disadvantage of the Community Legal Service Fund is that they have a budget in which they have to stick to. Of course they cannot be blamed for this, however criticisms have been made about the way they use the funding to fund civil cases.It is thought that they tend to fund cases that do not necessarily deserve of public money. Once the fund has run out someone who is deserving of the funding may then have to look elsewhere for help and may find themselves again being denied access to justice. Because Conditional Fee Arrangement works on a no win, no fee basis many Solicitors will not want to take on cases that are not likely to be successful and as a result denying the individual access to justice. Because of this certain legal problems such as clinical negligence have to be state funded because they are more likely to be unsuccessful.Another major disadvantage is that many solicitors who carry out Conditional Fee Arrangement will not take on a case unless the individual has taken out insurance against losing. However many cannot afford the insurance premiums, this again throws up the problem of many people being denied access to justice because of these kind of circumstances. Having said that it has now become harder to gain access to public money in order to fund a civil claim. Two tests have now been introduced, the merits test and the means test.These tests are used to see if a civil claim deserves to be funded and how likely it is to be successful, this makes it a lot harder for people to get legal aid for civil cases. The quality of justice has been described by the Citizens Advice Bureau CAB as appalling ever since the claims management companies CMCs have started to act as middlemen for lawyers and clients in setting up a Conditional Fee Arrangement in personal injury c ases. Claims management companies CMCs use hard-selling marketing tactics which pressures victims into entering into a contract with them.Often, they start by saying that they do not need to come out with a cent in seeking compensation but later on in some tiny footnotes they would write that the client may be subject to some payment. Essentially, not paying a cent is true, where legal costs is concerned, but damages are not always enough to pay back the interest rates of applying for a bank loan, which was meant to supply the insurance premiums. Because of the straightforwardness of some cases, some lawyers also take advantage of the situation to drag the case so that they may be paid more legal fees.Many consumers have complained that Conditional Fee Arrangement cases are so inefficient that they find it hard to resume their daily lives. Some straightforward cases were said to take up to months. The one-way cost shifting is also a disadvantage for the defendant. If the defendant h as failed to take up before the event insurance BTE, then he might find himself burdened with high legal costs from the other party when he loses. What is worse is that he also has to pay the other party’s success fee, which means he could be paying up to 2 times the price of a normal fee.This is not fair to the defendant. Another issue is that the defendant cannot control the legal costs of the other party and explained earlier this could be abused. Statistics have shown that the market for before the event insurance BTE is still very premature and hence defendants ending up bankrupt as a result of Conditional Fee Arrangements are a reality. Contingency fees do not guarantee civil justice, or even access to the courts. Lawyers sometimes â€Å"cherry pick† only the strongest claims which are most likely to succeed. Not all cases are immediately transparent.Some require extensive investigation before the chances of success can be properly assessed. Such cases might be t urned away because even the initial assessment of their strength is costly and risky. Next, we look at the former aims of Conditional Fee Arrangements. Conditional Fee Arrangements were meant to help those who were too poor for legal advice but failed the means test for legal aid. Recent cases such as Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd have seemed to imply that Conditional Fee Arrangements are available to just about anyone.This issue was brought up in the London Seminar as they said that for â€Å"Hollywood actress Sharon Stone, footballer Ashley Cole, supermodel Naomi Campbell†¦ none of these were seen denied justice on financial ground†. While this does not seem to bring about any problems since it is still applied as a Conditional Fee Arrangements, what we are introducing is a whole new culture of people who tries to take advantage of a no-risk system to earn a quick buck. In the case of Campbell, Naomi sued for breach of confidence, and earned ?3500.To note this case, it was also â€Å"mortifying to find that†¦ they (MGM) were made to pay legal costs in the sum of ?1,086,295. 47†. Lastly, on the point of abuse, it seems that lawyers doing Conditional Fee Arrangements are paid better hourly rates than a normal lawyer. Based on statistics, a Conditional Fee Arrangements lawyer easily earns 103-115% of the normal lawyer fee based in London. Because their demand is not cost-led, it is easy to see instances of over-claiming and over charging of fees.The Jackson Report this year has led to many changes to the Conditional Fee Arrangements scheme and though the effects have not been felt there has been much feedback. For one, the Conditional Fee Amendment Act 2010 aims to reduce the success fee from 100% to 10% maximum. This is something targeted to help the defendant as there has been much feedback that success fees are perverse to a point of landing people into bankruptcy. However, many such as the Law Society and the Manchester Law Society have spoken up for the lawyers saying that the 100% success fee should maintain.Many lawyers also seem to object to this move. This goes on the grounds that it is important that there are incentives for lawyers to do Conditional Fee Arrangements work. After all, if they lose the case, they are not paid, and these lawyers are really gambling out there. Based on my opinion, what this amendment does will cause severe repercussions. This will not stop the problem of cherry-picking. Rather, it will result in more cherry-picking because there is a tendency to do almost no-risk work.Also, this would mean that many people would lose the option to enter into a Conditional Fee Arrangements as supplier base would probably decrease due to less sure-win cases. Next, to look at the problem of dragging cases to increase profits, this might actually persist and get worse in order to earn more. Hence I would feel that this is an effort, despite its good intentions, that would be difficult to bear fruit. Secondly, there is a proposal to shift costs from the defendant to the claimant. Rather than bearing the full cost, it is suggested that the success fee be paid by the claimant.Courts have shown an apprehensive attitude towards this as the adversarial system has always been one that has a principle that the losers should pay the winner’s cost. This again is a move aimed to help the defendants. However, having this in play would mean that the claimants have less damage to recover. Yet, to look at it from another perspective, this would mean that lawyers can now no longer abuse success fee setting. It would shift the demand of this market to the hands of the claimants. In a way, this provides competition, keeping success fees low and efficient.It would also solve the problem of case dragging, since lawyers would be pressured by claimants not to take so much time. Although this means more lawyers would exit the market because of low profits, I would feel that it is still an advantage as it increases efficiency and cost. In conclusion, there are many disadvantages and little advantages of the old Conditional Fee Arrangements system as I have researched and analyzed but the new reforms by the Jackson Report might actually be able to solve some of those disadvantages so that Conditional Fee Arrangements become a good substitute for legal aid.