Who guards the guardians?

The gatekeepers of the legal profession have never looked favourably on challenges to the hegemony of their guild. Recently, top lawyers have been giving a hard time to one group in particular: the Environmental Law Centre (ELC), a volunteer organisation advising the victims of ecological crimes. By Chris Grimshaw

The ELC is a registered charity set up to assist people with legal and scientific advice, in order to help them protect their human rights in environmental and health issues. It operates a helpline and provides advice to individuals and communities throughout the world. The advice comes from a pool of lawyers, engineers, scientists and others, who give their time on a voluntary basis. Since its inception in 1998, the ELC has proven a thorn in the side of governmental, legal and commercial interests who routinely ignore or abuse their powers and position with respect to the victims of pollution and other ecological abuse. It has exposed corruption in all of these areas and helped thousands of individuals and communities seek redress for the damage done to them. The ELC answers over 12,000 inquiries each year.

However the ELC's work is being threatened by ongoing harassment from the Law Centres Federation, a private company which represents law centres across the UK. The ELC's first contact with the Federation was in December 2001 when they received a letter warning that by using the Law Centre in their name they could be liable to legal action for the offence of passing themselves off as a law centre. The letter invited the ELC to join the Law Centres Federation as an associate member.

Dr. Kartar Badsha, the centre's managing director, went to a meeting with Federation representatives to discuss the issue of membership, which the ELC had been asured would be a formality. At the meeting, however, then-chairman of the Federation Bob Nightingale claimed that there was an objection to the ELC's membership application from the Lord Chancellor's Department. He refused to divulge the nature of this objection. When pressed, he raised his own objection that the ELC had no paid staff, being a voluntary organisation, and that therefore it could not join the Federation. He was unable, however, to provide any documentation to show that a law centre must have paid staff as a necessary criterion of membership in the legal Centres Federation. Mr Nightingale, now the Chair of the London Legal Support Trust, denies this.

Dr Badhsa also reports that Mr Nightingale expressed surprise that the ELC appeared to be run by an Asian. Subsequently, rather than accepting or turning down the ELC's application, the Federation chose to defer the application indefinitely, leaving the ELC in an uncertain position.

The ELC responded by applying for a judicial review of the Federation's decision. Ultimately the ELC won the appeal and the right to take their case forward, on the grounds that they had a legitimate expectation of membership, given that they were invited to join by the Federation. However, because of the long process and high legal expenses the case would involve, the ELC chose to discontinue the matter. Their barrister, acting as a go-between, gave them an informal assurance from the Federation that it would in future leave them alone.

Round Two

But this year, the ELC received a further representation from the Federation through their solicitors, Pinsents. This time they were told that the term Law Centre was now a registered trademark owned by the Federation, and that the ELC's name amounted to an infringement of that trademark. Not only this - the ELC was accused of a “blatant passing off of their services as being those of the Federation or being entitled to the benefits of the Federation's reputation and goodwill”

Steve Hynes, the current chair of the Federation, told Corporate Watch: “all we ask is that the ELC cease to use our trademark”. Asked why the Federation would not accept the ELC as an associate member he said it was because law centres have to have paid solicitors working for them. The ELC does have solicitors, but they work on a voluntary basis. Hynes was unable to explain why payment of lawyers was significant other than that the Federation rules require it.

Law Centre status is very important to the ELC. The outcome of a recent court case, Paragon Finance v. R H Noueiri (EWCA Civ 1402, 19th September 2001), set a precedent that in future only members of the Law Society and the Law Centres Federation will be allowed to give legal advice to litigants. This creates an effective monopoly on legal advice for the Federation. It is not hard to see that this is in violation of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, where the right to a fair trial entitles every individual to "legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require”. Without Law Centre status the ELC might be forced to cease operating.

The ELC is asking people to lend “moral, financial and practical support to assist in our fight by sending us your letters of support of the importance of the ELC”. They are also asking people to “write to the UK Patent Office informing them that the words 'Law Centre' are generic and descriptive and cannot be allowed to be registered as a trade mark”.

For more information see the ELC's web site: http://www.elc.org.uk