Advocates seek pause for thought

AS YOU would expect from six lawyers, a letter published on Saturday arguing against an impending revolution in inheritance laws was both thought-provoking and well-constructed.

Less predictable, given its source, was its seeming futility. Advocates do not like to lose.

Yet, that the six have set themselves up for a fall would seem the only logical conclusion given the outcome of the States debate just a few months ago when deputies gave the nod to the abolition of centuries of island legal history.

And, at a resounding 33 votes to 11, it was a pretty firm nod.

So, a last-ditch plea for a change of heart by a quarter of the Assembly is optimistic, to say the least.

Even more surprising is the main thrust of the advocates' argument: that the new laws will encourage legal challenges to wills.

For those who hold a cynical view of the legal profession – a not uncommon outlook – it may come as a surprise that there are lawyers who would turn their back on more business.

Yet it is for those very reasons that States members should pause for a few minutes before rubber-stamping the projet de loi at the end of the month.

They can then ask themselves why six well-respected members of a profession known for its pragmatism would take time out of busy agendas to fight a lost cause in which they have the opposite of a vested interest.

The committee proposing this law themselves insisted that it was too complex and fundamental an issue to be rushed.

Yet, unless the Assembly performs a remarkable volte-face, the simple certainty of the current position, where the law dictates, to a great extent, who inherits, will be replaced by an open system where anyone can challenge a will in court.

Many people would agree that you should be able to leave your money to whomever you wish. But few would want a judge to then overturn that decision.

And even fewer would want estates tied up for years in Dickensian legal tape while an opportunist litigant exploits a chance to make some easy money.