totallylegal

Sunday 15th August 2010: Amicus Jail Break - London

Sunday 15th August 2010
Amicus Jail Break - London

12pm – 3pm



Amicus invites you to our annual Jail Break fundraiser. Negotiate your way around London, solving clues along the way to break your team out of jail.

Starting from the Old Star pub at 12pm, adjacent to the Broadway exit from St. James Park tube station, your escape will be completed in the vicinity of the South Bank, close to London Waterloo, finishing at the ‘British Film Institute’ who have agreed to support us for this event. Your team, we hope, will have completed the course by 2.30pm at the latest and we welcome you to join us for lunch and a drink before heading off.

Clues and full instructions will be provided on the day. First team to find the finish point wins! Amongst some of the prizes on offer, Lord Patel has offered to give a VIP guided tour of the House of Lords.

Amicus – then known as The Andrew Lee Jones Fund – was founded in 1992 in memory of Andrew Lee Jones, who was executed in Louisiana in 1991. The charity’s objectives are to assist in the provision of legal representation for those awaiting capital trial and punishment in the US, or any other country, and to raise awareness of potential abuses of defendants’ rights.

Amicus relies solely on the generosity of donors and volunteers to raise funds and we run special events throughout the year to help us reach our goals. To date, Amicus has already placed interns in every US death penalty state and has close relationships with over 20 offices in 15 key states.

Last year alone Amicus managed to send out over 30 interns to the USA. These interns carried out in excess of 15,000 hours of pro bono work and assisted on three exonerations in Mississippi alone. Amicus keeps growing.

Cost
£50 per team

£25 per team (if booked by students or Amicus members)

Download Amicus Jail Break Booking Form


Event details

Date: Sunday 15th August 2010
Price: £50 or £25 per team
Location: The Old Star Pub, Westminster (next to St James's Park station).

Contact details

Website: www.amicus-alj.org
Email: admin@amicus-alj.org

Goodbye SABIP

From Laurence Kaye on Digital Media Law


Dear Reader,

So the full force of Government cuts has hit the IP world, with the dissolution of SABIP, the Strategic Advisory Board for Intellectual Policy. As a member of its Copyright Expert Panel, I have now experienced the full force of Vince Cable's quango-cutting power.

The IPO will integrate SABIP's work on copyright issues into its own work research programme on the economic value of IP, so the theme of evidence-based IP policy will continue.

Can small law firms get the biggest work?

One of the better legal blogs is What About Clients? written by Dan Hull, partner at Hull McGuire.

His blog has made observations on the prospects of small law firms obtaining the work that, say, Magic Circles or large US ones do.

“The point is this: 90% of the important corporate legal work being done right now by firms between 500 and 3000 lawyers can be done by boutiques and smaller firms. If it has the right people, your firm can land Fortune 500 companies and keep them.”

Inspiring stuff for the smaller provider; you can compete for the work.

What a yawn

Another one of those ridiculous surveys has seen the light of day. This one tells us that when women yawn, it doesn’t necessarily mean they are tired. On the contrary, it could mean they are sexually active! However, we are given little guidance on how to spot the difference. Is she up for it, or is she dog tired?

Presumably nobody saw fit to include my wife in the survey, let alone get a second opinion from me. Had these surveyors done so, they would have discovered that when my wife yawns, it means she’s tired.

Talking of yawns, the High Court is on vacation, with a skeleton staff and a ‘vacation’ judge to deal with emergencies. However, I am reliably informed that the newly-created Supreme Court is still at it, and an example to us all. I know this because they have recently handed down their judgment in the case of Austin v Southwark LBC, and I also know you would want me to share it with you.

Employment Law: June 2010 - This month in Legal News and Case Law

Legal News

The Emergency Budget may have been overshadowed by headlines on England’s World Cup exit, but its impact on HR issues is, nonetheless, significant. Of note is the one-year public sector pay freeze (affecting all staff earning more than £21,000) due to start in April 2011, which has now been extended to 2012. Many view a pay freeze as being akin to a pay cut, and this may have a detrimental impact on morale in the public sector. On the other side of the coin, it may reduce the risk of future pay cuts and protect some job numbers. As predicted, employers’ National Insurance contribution threshold has been raised, whilst companies that set up outside the South East will not have to pay NI for the first 10 employees hired over the next three years. Hopefully, this will help incentivise new small businesses to grow and encourage job creation.

What seems to have particularly ignited public interest is the launch of consultation on the phasing out of the default retirement age and acceleration of the increase in the State Pension Age to 66 from 2016 (referred to catchily by Nick Clegg as their ‘reinvigoration of retirement’).

Common sense and fairness

Too much has already been ventilated, by word and mouth, on the Human Rights Act, with proponents and opponents entrenched in their respective corners and never destined to meet halfway.

In previous articles, I have advocated its repeal and will continue to do so, despite the recent speech of Lord Phillips, the President of the newly-created Supreme Court. He argues for its retention, but he fails to persuade me.

There are essentially three issues regarding the Act. Firstly, do we need a Human Rights Act at all? Only if it can be demonstrated that the human rights of the subject were not satisfactorily protected before the Act can a compelling case be made for its retention. Our human rights before the Act were not statute based, but had evolved over centuries by the sensible application of common sense and fairness.

The trials and tribulations of working in-house

 When I was offered a job to work in-house for a telecommunications company almost immediately after completing my LLM, I grabbed it with both hands. That was eight months ago, and although there have been fleeting moments of doubt, I certainly don’t regret accepting the position. Looking back, it’s been an interesting – and at times, painful – journey but I’ve learnt an awful lot in the process.

Working in-house brings a number of unique challenges distinctive to private practice – for better and worse. On the plus side, it’s certainly easier to relate to the client, as your interests are much more closely aligned. Having just one client who is 100% on-board with what you’re doing also has a number of upsides. It’s a pleasure not having to try and routinely handhold the client and walk them through the details of your course of action in a matter, explaining why you’ve done X and not Y.

How organisations can avoid race discrimination claims

A recent high-profile case, in which the Metropolitan Police faced claims of race discrimination against a senior black officer, holds some useful pointers for how businesses and organisations can avoid race discrimination at work and tackle potential difficulties before they reach the Employment Tribunal stage.

In the case in question, Superintendent Paul Wilson had alleged that his career had been sidelined after he issued a report into police racism that alleged poor treatment of black and ethnic minority officers. Wilson, who had been on the force for 31 years, said his investigation was suppressed by senior colleagues.

Employment Law: May 2010 - This month in Legal News and Case Law

 

Legal News

It won’t have escaped the notice of many that the month of May saw a general election, resulting in a hung parliament and a new coalition government being formed. After a week of procrastinating, the ‘Condems’ (Conservatives and Liberal Democrats) joined forces and set about knocking up a coalition agreement. From an employment law perspective, the coalition agreement refers to reviewing "employment and workplace laws, for employers and employees, to ensure they maximise flexibility for both parties while protecting fairness and providing the competitive environment required for enterprise to thrive". No further details are given in the coalition agreement, although key issues such as the default retirement age of 65, the Agency Worker Regulations, the Working Time Regulations 48 hour opt-out and the Equality Act could all be under the spotlight.

Going Dutch

Speak to most young lawyers, and the one theme that emerges from their conversation is the importance of business development and networking. Indeed, a survey that I helped to write for Legal Week, on associate and partner views of the future, confirms it.

This is why events like the 2010 Anglo-Dutch Young Lawyers Exchange are so important; they give young lawyers an opportunity to build relationships and network across what is a highly significant legal market. The event also helps lawyers to build cross-referrals from within their Dutch and English offices, as well as broadening their own career options.

Barristers also benefit from the Exchange. They gain the advantage of offering their advocacy and advice services – through direct access – to EU-qualified professionals, particularly in areas like shipping, insurance, and banking and finance. So it is good to see that Quadrant Chambers are acting as sponsors.

Total Madness

You couldn’t make it up if you tried. Picture the scene: earlier this week, Mr. Justice Mitting presided over a Special Immigration Appeals Commission to hear the appeals against deportation of Abid Naseer and Ahmed Faraz Khan. Both men, Pakistani nationals, had come to the United Kingdom on student visas, and within a matter of months had immersed themselves in terrorist activities. Naseer in particular was described by the judge as “an al-Qaeda operative who posed and still poses a serious threat to national security.”

However, after mature reflection, the judge ruled that even though deportation was conducive to the public good, this was not possible because of the risk that he might suffer torture at the hands of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence Agency [ISI]. This would breach his human rights under the Human Rights Act 1998. His human rights?! What about ours?!

Not surprisingly, the new Home Secretary Theresa May was ‘disappointed’ by the ruling!

Is there REALLY any difference between marketing services to consumer products?

My story

I spent ten years at Procter & Gamble immersing myself in the world of consumers. For me, moving to Shell was a first step on the journey from B2C, as I was effectively selling to both consumers and organisations. It certainly felt different. Here I learnt what was meant by ‘networking’ and the value of relationships in business. Indeed, this would later enable me to fulfill a lifelong ambition to create and run my own business. In my opinion, leveraging relationships and savvy networking are key differences to how to promote in the B2B world.

Relationships

So what is savvy networking all about? For me it’s about investing in meaningful relationships to create value. An analysis of the marketing consultancy that I founded in 2005, Size 10 ½ Boots , highlights why this is so important.
 
Our interest is in helping professional service firms grow. Our clients are typically law firms, accountancy practices, patent attorneys, and property professionals such as architects or quantity surveyors. Eight client projects have led to repeat purchases and 70% of revenues have been generated from existing relationships and referrals. This is because we try to add value over and beyond the brief.

Time for a Meetings Tsar?

One of the things I don’t miss since leaving partnership is the endless round of meetings. Partners’ meetings, department meetings, team meetings, one-to-one meetings, the list goes on. Were they all necessary? Did they always achieve something? Was action arising from the meetings always agreed? Was that action always taken? Was it always followed up? In all cases, the answer is sometimes and sometimes not.

I once attended, as an outsider, a meeting of partners and senior personnel, which was to last a full day. I estimated that the cost of the meeting in terms of fee earning opportunity was roughly £20,000, so I was hoping for great focus and dynamism, culminating in a number of resolutions that would be rigorously acted upon and followed up. Sadly, I was disappointed on all fronts.  Even sadder, in my 26 years since qualifying as a solicitor, this was not an unusual occurrence.

Legal Update – Contracts (BSkyB v EDS)

From Laurence Kaye on Digital Media Law


Dear Reader,

If you will indulge us veering slightly away from the usual digital media and IP topics, we would like to turn to matters contractual by drawing your attention to a very important recent case – BSkyB v EDS [2010] EWHC 86 (TCC). You can find the full 468 page Judgment here. Or, if you don't have a spare week to plough through it, we've picked out the key points in our legal update below.

The significance of this case extends to all industries so the publishers and media companies amongst you should take note of the below as much as the IT suppliers and outsourcers - and everyone in between. The key point to draw from this case is a reminder that anything said by a party before entering into a contract might expose that party to a claim for misrepresentation, depending on the nature of the statement made, the other party’s reliance on it, and the provisions of the contract itself.

Marketing is for everyone

On a couple of occasions, I’ve been invited by The Law Society to talk to Newly Qualified and 3 to 5 years PQE solicitors on the subject of marketing.

By my own admission, the presentations didn’t go very well. Marketing didn’t seem of interest to that particular group of lawyers, I suspect because they don’t see it as their problem. Given the mix of public sector, in-house and private practice, I can see why. However, as we should all be aware, the legal services market is changing and marketing will play a significant part in all lawyers’ work.

The Chartered Institute of Marketing (CIM) has a long definition of marketing, but my colleague at Marketlaw, David Monk, has a more similar version:

"If it’s not the production of legal work or accounting for the work then it’s marketing".

Employment Law: April 2010 - This month in Legal News and Case Law

Legal News

As I am sure most of you are aware, the Equality Bill received Royal Assent on 8th April and has now become The Equality Act 2010. It is intended to come into effect on a phased basis between October 2010 and 2013. The purpose of this new legislation is to encompass thirty years’ worth of discrimination legislation and case law, and to explain the law on discrimination. The Act will clarify what is expected of employers and employees and will extend some forms of discrimination beyond the workplace. For more information on how this will affect businesses going forward, many firms are running training events.

How to negotiate a Hung Parliament

With just over one week to go until the general election, every opinion poll in play is predicting a hung parliament.
 
This could lead to the possibility we are heading towards some form of coalition government.

There is some useful analysis provided by Anthony Wells here.

"We are 9 days out from the election, people look at the opinion polls wanting to know who is going to win, who is going to form the next government. The simple answer is that at present they can’t tell us – we look set for a hung Parliament and who will form the government will depend to a certain extent upon negotiations between the parties, rather than the levels of support the parties receive."

A legal minefield

The last decade has seen a number of high profile divorce settlements receiving the stamp of judicial imprimatur which, to the professional and layman alike, are very difficult to reconcile the one with the other. The most egregious of these spring readily to mind.

The Whites started the ball rolling in 2000, followed by the Parlours – he of footballing fame. Next came the McFarlanes and the Millers, then the McCartneys, and very recently the Vaughans. And finally, soon to be handed down will be the judgment of the Supreme Court in Radmacher and Granatino, that deals with prenuptial agreements.

And what are we professionals to make of these judgments? For my part, I fail to find a ‘golden thread’ of judicial interpretation that will enable me to give my clients sound legal advice once love, and reason, fly out the window.

Brave new world

Public Access to the Bar, by which members of the public can instruct barristers direct for legal advice and representation, has just received a significant shot in the arm. The Legal Services Commission has now agreed to remove the last of the unhelpful and unworkable restrictions on what a barrister may or may not do. With a few minor exceptions, barristers can now enjoy a level playing field when competing with solicitors.

In truth, solicitors have only themselves to blame for the popularity of public access work. Some years ago, they broke the monopoly of the Bar over exclusive rights of audience in the higher courts, claiming that this monopoly discriminated against them and obliged their clients to pay twice where Counsel had to be instructed. Far better, they argued implausibly, if solicitors could offer a ‘cradle to grave’ service, and in no time at all, they were popping up all over the place, grappling with the complexities of evidence and procedure and stretching the patience of the judiciary to breaking point.

Why BA and Unite want the strike to continue

It’s April, and the BA cabin crew dispute continues.

Beyond what the parties are saying about how they REALLY want to settle the dispute, there are some clear factors that are keeping them in conflict mode.

It is evident that both BA and Unite are not really motivated in trying to settle the dispute.

How can I be certain of this?

The first glaring reason for this is the forum for trying to settle. The actual parties seem to be in permanent but broken negotiation. When the parties do negotiate, they are both engaged in leaking to the press – revealing their game plans. This is hardly supportive to achieving settlement.