Does anyone know what the definition of “completed” could be in the guidance notes or is it intended to have the dictionary meaning of " finished/done/concluded"?
For reference, the context is:
Under the re-accreditation procedures and criteria you will be asked to demonstrate your continued competence by: …
- providing two case reports not from the same section (ie. one section 2 hearing or one section 3 or unrestricted section 37 hearing or one restricted hearing or one other hearing of whatever type), compiled from cases completed during the past 12 months. …
I know that they won’t accept any observed hearing (so ignore that option on the case report form) or, more oddly, any hearing conducted as agent (no matter how much preparatory work you have done, unless you have conducted the whole case from first attendance).
Beyond that, it’s probably just the plain meaning. The case report form is roughly chronological, with the final part being “The tribunal’s decision and how it dealt with the issues”, so maybe once you are able to answer that question the case is “completed” – or maybe, to be cautious, you could treat is as being when any appeal has been dealt with.
Thank you very much Jonathan, that is most helpful.
I absolutely agree with you. Here is where it gets tricky though:
P makes an appeal, tribunal convenes to hear the appeal but some reports are missing and no arrangements have been made for P to attend the hearing remotely and P wants to attend.
Panel considers whether to proceed. Representations are made for a postponement and the panel decides to grant the application to postpone. P is then discharged by RC before next hearing. Tribunal closes their file.
Is this a completed tribunal or not?
Personally I’d say yes, as you conducted advocacy at the tribunal hearing. You wouldn’t be able to complete all of the case report form (e.g. “The issues raised in questioning witnesses on behalf of the client”) but that shouldn’t be a big deal. However, the Law Society can be capricious and your life might be easier if you were to choose a different case.
There is something to put under that heading - RC had never met P but had produced a report that didn’t mention that. It was the only report available on the day. So that question was put to him and it transpired that he hadn’t seen P at all.
Thank you very much for clarifying it all up for me. Very grateful.