Jonathan Djanogly, Justice Minister and former SJ Berwin partner, has been accused of standing to gain from changes he is proposing to make to Legal Aid.
Not content with cutting the Legal Aid budget by £350m, Djanogly is also planning to shift some of the costs of no win, no fee cases away from insurers and onto winning claimants. Which is jolly good news for the insurance industry. In which, according to the Guardian, Djanogly has at least £250,000 in shares.
Djanogly has now put these investments in a blind trust, but he's still being investigated by both the Ministry of Justice and the Cabinet Office. He said that both departments "have my full cooperation".
This is the latest in a series of embarrassments for the minister. He looked like a paranoid buffoon last autumn when it was revealed that he'd paid private investigators to sniff around his Conservative colleagues and find out what they thought of him (the answer being - not very much). He was criticised for claiming £13,000 in expenses for a cleaner who also looked after his children. And he failed to declare that his children were shareholders in businesses which encourage accident victims to take legal action - an industry that he regulates.
Tip Off ROF
Not content with cutting the Legal Aid budget by £350m, Djanogly is also planning to shift some of the costs of no win, no fee cases away from insurers and onto winning claimants. Which is jolly good news for the insurance industry. In which, according to the Guardian, Djanogly has at least £250,000 in shares.
Djanogly has now put these investments in a blind trust, but he's still being investigated by both the Ministry of Justice and the Cabinet Office. He said that both departments "have my full cooperation".
Jonathan Djanogly looking contrite yesterday |
This is the latest in a series of embarrassments for the minister. He looked like a paranoid buffoon last autumn when it was revealed that he'd paid private investigators to sniff around his Conservative colleagues and find out what they thought of him (the answer being - not very much). He was criticised for claiming £13,000 in expenses for a cleaner who also looked after his children. And he failed to declare that his children were shareholders in businesses which encourage accident victims to take legal action - an industry that he regulates.
Comments
76
69
76
82
Just thought that might clarify whether he's a shifty so and so or in fact just onto a good thing for the family business...