Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990
Write the words of this act the way you think they should read. Solon shows your change as a redline against the published text and pins it to that exact text, so it can never be applied to wording you did not see.
Change 1
31 Rules of conduct etc.
(1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2) Where it appears to the Faculty of Advocates that any rule of conduct in relation to the exercise of an advocate’s right of audience in the Court of Session is more restrictive than the equivalent rule in relation to the exercise of the equivalent right in the sheriff court, they may submit that rule to the Secretary of State for his approval, and the Secretary of State shall consult the CMA in accordance with section 40 of this Act, and thereafter, having— (a) considered any advice tendered to him by the CMA; (b) compared the rule applicable in the Court of Session with the equivalent rule applicable in the sheriff court; and (c) considered whether the interests of justice require that there should be such a rule in the Court of Session, he may approve or refuse to approve the rule. (3) In section 34 of the 1980 Act (rules as to professional practice, conduct and discipline)— (a) at the end of subsection (1A) there shall be inserted— and (f) make such additional or different provision as the Council think fit in relation to solicitors who, or incorporated practices which, are partners in or directors of multi-disciplinary practices. ; and (b) after subsection (3) there shall be inserted— (3A) Without prejudice to subsection (3), any rule made, whether before or after the coming into force of this subsection, by the Council under this section or section 35 which has the effect of prohibiting the formation of multi-disciplinary practices shall not have effect unless the Secretary of State, after consulting the Director in accordance with section 64A, has approved it. .
31 Rules of conduct etc.
(1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2) Where it appears to the Faculty of Advocates that any rule of conduct in relation to the exercise of an advocate’s right of audience in the Court of Session is more restrictive than the equivalent rule in relation to the exercise of the equivalent right in the sheriff court, they may submit that rule to the Secretary of State for his approval, and the Secretary of State shall consult the CMA in accordance with section 40 of this Act, and thereafter, having— (a) considered any advice tendered to him by the CMA; (b) compared the rule applicable in the Court of Session with the equivalent rule applicable in the sheriff court; and (c) considered whether the interests of justice require that there should be such a rule in the Court of Session, he may approve or refuse to approve the rule. (3) In section 34 of the 1980 Act (rules as to professional practice, conduct and discipline)— (a) at the end of subsection (1A) there shall be inserted— and (f) make such additional or different provision as the Council think fit in relation to solicitors who, or incorporated practices which, are partners in or directors of multi-disciplinary practices. ; and (b) after subsection (3) there shall be inserted— (3A) Without prejudice to subsection (3), any rule made, whether before or after the coming into force of this subsection, by the Council under this section or section 35 which has the effect of prohibiting the formation of multi-disciplinary practices shall not have effect unless the Secretary of State, after consulting the Director in accordance with section 64A, has approved it. .
One line that says what changes, such as "Halve the dog tax".
Who it helps, what it costs, what it fixes. It is what persuades people to support it.
A proposal here is not law. Support on Solon is evidence that people want the change; the official route says what it takes to make it law.
Sign in to file your proposal. What you have written stays on this page.
Sign in to file itThink it through
Ask what your change would do, who would gain and who would bear a cost, and where something like it is already law. The assistant reads your draft as it stands, cites the law and the studies it finds, and takes no side. What you file stays yours.