Legal Disciplinary Practices – Who Needs Them?

The recent publication of the government's Review of the Regulatory Framework for Legal Services in England and Walesin March 2004 heralds a new era regarding the way in which legal services are to be delivered to the public. In the wake of the Enron-Arthur Andersen debacle, and growing disenchantment amongst policy-makers and market players with the involvement of 'elite' accountancy firms in the provision of legal services, interest and attention has now shifted away from the formation of Multi-Disciplinary Practices towards a new model of legal services provider– Legal Disciplinary Practices (LDPs), where the focus is at all times on the provision of legal services, albeit widely defined. The purpose of this article is to explore, and subsequently critique, the rationales behind the formation of LDPs and to outline the dangers which the provision of legal services through such business structures is likely to pose not only for the legal profession, but also for society more generally.     

Trusts for Religious Purposes and the Question of Public Benefit

It is a well‐established principle that no trust may be regarded as charitable in law unless carrying out its purposes will benefit the public. Trusts for religious purposes have traditionally been presumed by courts to be for the public benefit. However, the presumption of public benefit will be removed from the law in early 2008 when section 3(2) of the Charities Act 2006 comes into force. At that time, two questions are likely to attract interest. First, to what extent, and in what ways, has the application of a presumption of public benefit assisted courts up to now? Secondly, without the assistance of the presumption, how might courts go about ascertaining whether the public will benefit in future cases? The article takes up these two questions with respect to trusts for religious purposes.     

Field performance of the Intoxilyzer 5000: a comparison of blood- and breath-alcohol results in Wisconsin drivers

Intoxilyzer 5000 and blood-alcohol results from drivers arrested for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated and for related offenses were compared during a two-year period. Three hundred and ninety-five pairs of results were studied. The breath- and blood-alcohol specimens in this study were collected within 1 h of each other. The mean blood-alcohol concentration obtained was 0.180 g/dL, with a range from zero to 0.338 g/dL. By comparison, the mean Intoxilyzer 5000 result was 0.16 g/210 L with a range from zero to 0.32 g/210 L. Compared with the blood-alcohol result, Intoxilyzer 5000 results were lower by more than 0.01 g/210 L 67% of the time, within 0.01 g/210 L 31% of the time, and higher by more than 0.01 g/210 L 2% of the time.