Twenty-seven-year-old suing former employer for sex discrimination tells of ‘constant’ groping in hotel rooms
A junior solicitor fired from her £42,000 job has accused her former boss of taking her to an Amsterdam sex show as part of a pattern of sexual harassment, eventually sacking her after she refused to have an affair with him.
The claimant, known only as A, alleges that the married senior partner also took her to expensive restaurants and clubs in London and made sexual advances at luxury hotels during work trips to Dubai and Amsterdam. She is now suing the firm for sex discrimination at the Central London Employment Tribunal.
The 27-year-old reportedly told the tribunal: “D said we should make the most of Amsterdam. He suggested I and a few others go to a sex show. This was no PG rated sex show, this was full on live sex happening in front of us, which I don’t think is appropriate for us to go watch with colleagues anyway.”
The complainant also recounted “constant” groping in hotel rooms, as well as being “secretly videoed” and photographed. A said that she put up with the harassment for the sake of her career:
“The way I reacted to the sexual harassment and the touching was, I kept telling myself you have got no choice, you have to put up with this otherwise you’re going to lose your job.”
The partner, D, denies all claims against him. At the tribunal his lawyer, Daphne Romney QC, pointed to WhatsApp messages that A had sent to a friend about wanting a rich boyfriend. One reportedly said: “I want my boyfriend to turn up outside my house in a Range Rover and buy me a puppy”.
The tribunal also heard that A was fired for failing to complete timesheets and overcharging clients. The allegations were an “act of revenge”, the tribunal heard, with A saying: “I want to f**k up his life”.
But A insists that she lost her job directly after turning her boss down for sex, saying that “it’s very telling that within two hours of me emailing him to make it clear I was not keen on returning to Dubai with him he sacked me”.
All parties to the case are anonymous by order of the tribunal. The hearing continues.
Lawyers are no longer isolated providers of water-tight legal documents
Few things can change a conversation amongst law students like commercial awareness. I know, because I spent two weeks trying to circumvent the Financial Times paywall before my TC interview in the City in a bid to impress my interviewers with the likely implications of Nigerian GDP growth. In the event, they never asked, nor did I feel like they ever would.
It did get me thinking though. Why do so many technically capable and talented young lawyers suffer from the same crippling fear as I did — that they simply don’t know enough about the business world to be comfortable talking about it?
The answer, I think, lies somewhere between the rapidly changing nature of the legal industry (which in fairness requires a bit of awareness itself), and the failure of the legal education system as it stands, particularly at undergraduate level, to adapt.
The changes can be broadly categorised into two areas.
Firstly, the emergence of technology and its capabilities in document reviewal and drafting. It’s very easy to hear the term ‘artificial intelligence’ and assume that sentient robot beings are coming to take our jobs, but the truth is far closer to home: gone are the days of the superstar warrior-drafter-lawyer who could grind out a commercial lease in twenty minutes flat. In five years, there will be software for that. Being a technically gifted lawyer on its own means increasingly little.
The second change has much more to do with the way in which professional services work in general. The legal market is saturated, and with clients becoming increasingly conscious of the amount they spend on legal services (in light of more efficient, technological solutions) — lawyers can either choose to fall out of the picture all together or to change the service they offer. And, for those wondering, that means being commercially aware. It means understanding the client, understanding what they want, and understanding how they’re going to get there.
Lawyers are no longer isolated providers of water-tight legal documents because, you guessed it, there’ll be software for that. In order to maximise the value they can provide clients, they’ll need to offer more than a document — they’ll need to offer real, business-savvy advice.
This is where I think the legal education fails its budding scholars and where students can do better to prepare themselves for both interviews and City law careers in general. There is a growing skill gap between how legal services are being delivered and what students are being taught to do and think.
I remember hearing that certain firms were more ‘innovative’ and ‘entrepreneurial’ than others, but not really grasping what it meant. In reality, it is those firms that are embracing those changes and doing their best to enable their young lawyers to shift away from the technical side to the client side at an earlier stage, thus providing more value-per-lawyer than ever before.
The knock-on effect of this has to travel all the way down to legal education. If firms want to hire the best candidates for the job, and that job is changing, we need to be doing more to help those students understand how. It is one thing to know how a merger happens – quite another to understand why. If we can teach aspiring lawyers the answers to these broader, ‘commercial’ questions, then we are preparing them far better for what’s to come.
I remember being distinctly frustrated at the lack of opportunity in my degree to study business, the economy or anything more interesting than Mrs Donoghue and the snail. It is no wonder that many students get to interview and feel a little bewildered by how law firms actually operate and the services they offer – they have never been taught.
Advocating for a more practical approach to legal undergraduate study doesn’t come without its controversies. The LPC is supposed to shoulder some of that burden. But the unhappy truth is that in an increasingly uncertain and competitive job market, students have to think about their careers far earlier than ever, and we would do well to be affording them the why, not just the how.
Robots are not coming to take our jobs — but they are changing the way we do them, and the students, universities and law firms that are up for the task of meeting that change head on will be those that prosper.
David Smith (pseudonym) is studying law at university in London and has training contract lined up at a silver circle law firm.
Creators of AI robot, ‘Kira’, also tied-in with new offering
Aberdeen’s Robert Gordon University
Robert Gordon University (RGU) is the latest to announce a tech module as part of its law school’s online postgraduate diploma in legal practice. The module covers the basics on what tech is available in current legal practice, the regulatory framework, as well as data analysis techniques.
David Christie, a senior lecturer at RGU’s law school who helped design the course, explains their thinking: “The challenge is working out what law graduates entering the workforce need to know now, and also how they need to think about the changes which will come in the future.”
News of RGU’s move follows on from a number of other universities launching similar modules.
RGU’s law school partnered with international law firm, Addleshaw Goddard, as well as software and tech companies in what the school calls a “demand-led” approach to designing the module. RGU’s software partner is Canadian company, Kira Systems, which owns an artificial intelligence (AI) ‘bot called ‘Kira’, described by Legal Cheek as “a paralegal on steroids” because it can rapidly scan contracts and even spot legal pitfalls. The partnership is not surprising in that Kira Systems and Addleshaws are already working together following the firm buying Kira for its own practice. Kira is also used by the likes of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer and Clifford Chance.
Aberdeen-based RGU’s module will include the less glamorous side of tech with lectures on data protection and cybersecurity. Ross McKenzie, a data protection partner at Addleshaws who delivers courses on these subjects, said:
“Data protection rules around how personal information is handled is as important as the law of contract and property — everything you do in your workplace and home is touched by it and I look forward to equipping students with knowledge in this area.”
Val Bremner, who has overall responsibility for the diploma and also lectures at the law school, commented: “At a time when technology is playing an ever-increasing role in the way that the legal profession in Scotland operates, we are delighted to be in a position to collaborate closely with experts to help improve access to the profession, while enhancing the skills of our future legal professionals.”
Free weekly sessions help members of the public and small businesses
KCL’s Dickson Poon School of Law and PwC – image credit (left) Vladgrigore
The legal arm of Big Four giant PwC has today launched a new pro bono offering in partnership with King’s College London (KCL).
The tie-up will see around 30 PwC lawyers offer up their free time to work with KCL student volunteers and deliver the new community legal service. The weekly sessions will take place at King’s Legal Clinic at the Dickson Poon School of Law on Thursday evenings during term time.
The initiative, which was co-founded by PwC’s Kirsty O’Connor and Keily Blair, will provide members of the public, sole traders, small business owners and social enterprises with gratuitous advice on one-off legal matters. It is unclear exactly which areas of law the clinic will focus on.
Commenting on the new project, O’Connor, a solicitor in PwC’s regulatory and commercial disputes team, said:
“This is an exciting and extremely important venture. Legal services should be available to everyone, regardless of their background or personal circumstances. Many of the clinic’s clients have low household incomes and could not otherwise access legal support. For a society to be fair, income should not be a barrier to accessing justice.”
Shaila Pal, assistant director of clinical legal education at KCL, added:
“King’s Legal Clinic is delighted to be partnering with PwC on this new service for the community. Every year the clinic sees the demand for pro bono legal advice increase. Ordinary people and small businesses with limited means are faced with legal problems that they are unable to resolve without specialist assistance… It’s also a valuable way for King’s students to learn about how the law works in practice.”
The new offering is part of PwC’s wider strategy for community inclusion and wellbeing. The PwC pro bono unit, which launched last year, provides its lawyers with the opportunity to use their skills and experience to support community projects and widen access to the legal profession.
Legal Cheek‘s Firms Most List shows that PwC offers around 25 training contracts each year and has a whopping 743 offices in 157 different countries! Its newly qualified (NQ) London lawyers start on a salary of £63,000.
Exclusive: Real estate firm still hasn’t been able to return
A Legal Cheek mock-up of the crack
Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner (BCLP) has temporarily relocated its Manchester office after a giant crack appeared in one of the building’s walls.
The firm, which employs around 100 staff in Manchester, had to evacuate the Grade II-listed building last November when a fence smashed into the brickwork during high winds. At the time, Manchester City Council stressed that the incident wasn’t a safety issue and repair work was already being arranged.
However, several months on and with all the building’s other tenants understood to be back on site, Legal Cheek has learned that BCLP, continues to operate from an interim office space across the street. According to one insider, this is because the 32-office-outfit is now in a “dispute” with the building’s landlord over the “repair work”.
The 76 King Street building, which is home to other businesses including retailers Belstaff and DKNY, is currently owned by HPPUT, an investment outfit which is part of the Daily Mail & General Trust pensions group. It purchased the building from real estate firm, Aprirose, for £18.25 million in September — just months before the crack appeared.
Need for English-qualified lawyers continues despite ‘ongoing economic and political uncertainties’, says US law firm
The London office of US outfit White & Case has confirmed it’s retaining 12 of its 16 trainees due to qualify this month, handing it a solid spring score of 75%.
The firm, which recruits around 50 rookies each year, said it’s newly qualified (NQ) lawyers will qualify into practice areas including commercial litigation, international arbitration, mergers & acquisitions, project development and finance and white-collar crime. One fresh-faced associate will be joining the firm’s Hong Kong office.
“The business need for English law qualified lawyers in London and throughout our offices worldwide continues, despite ongoing economic and political uncertainties,” said White & Case partner Justin Benson, who heads the trainee solicitor programme in London. “Our newly qualified lawyers join practices which advise leading global clients on their most important, complex, cross-border matters.”
In terms of salaries, the New York-headquartered outfit’s latest recruits will start on £105,000, while Legal Cheek‘s Firms Most List shows trainees currently receive £46,000 in year one, rising to £50,000 in year two.
Melissa Butler, office executive partner in London, added: “White & Case supports the development of its lawyers throughout their careers and we have a proven track record of promoting our best lawyers to partner. Our London training programme has launched hundreds of successful legal careers, and its combination of consistently high retention rates and a highly competitive salary and benefits package ensures that White & Case is a leading destination for talented, ambitious trainee lawyers.”
As for life as a lawyer at White & Case, it scored A*s for peer support and perks in our Trainee and Junior Lawyer Survey, as well as As for training, quality of work, partner approachability, canteen and social life. The firm, however, could only muster a B grade for its office.
Tesco-working Swansea law grad issues calm and measured Twitter response
Luke Penney
A 22-year-old Tesco worker who is one of the country’s youngest criminal judges faces a social media storm following an interview in which he said the role is “just about following your gut instinct”.
Lawyers took to social media to slate Luke Penney, who has been on the bench at Swansea Magistrates’ Court since last year, claiming that the comment portrayed a lack of understanding of how to decide cases. Speaking to BBC News in an interview to promote the volunteer role of magistrates, Penney said:
“Being a magistrate is challenging, it does test you and your morals. It is just about following your gut instinct. My first case on the job was murder. It hit me that this responsibility given to society is huge, to keep everyone safe and to look out for the interests of justice.”
Lawyers leapt on the line as confirmation of their worst fears about “amateur” magistrates, leaving Penney to protest that it had been taken out of context in a lengthy interview.
'You've just got to follow your gut instinct' says 22-year-old magistrate Luke Penney. Really?!?! What about trying the case according to the evidence? Great to have a young magistrate but perhaps shows the need for better training @JudiciaryUK@MagsAssoc? https://t.co/I4RoISX4Mr
Other lawyers refused to jump on the bandwagon. Solicitor-advocate Nicholas Diable said that “I think this criticism is way OTT. A single line that could easily be interpreted in different ways is being used to castigate someone who in every other part of the interview comes across as dedicated and responsible”.
While Robin Murray, a former vice chair of the Criminal Law Solicitors Association (CLSA), said: “I don’t think it’s fair criticism to take one comment out of context. The bench are having a hard job recruiting at the moment and this is not going to help”.
Taking to Twitter to defend himself, Penney said: “Just to clarify the wording I used on a BBC clip I participated in – I use the word gut instinct. I now see that this may be misunderstood and I could have expressed it better. This was my first TV interview for which I was nervous. Of course all evidence is considered to which a decision is made on the reliability of said available evidence. I apologise to anyone who may have doubted my ability”.
Just to clarify the wording I used on a BBC clip I participated in – I use the word gut instinct. I now see that this may be misunderstood and I could have expressed it better. This was my first TV interview for which I was nervous. Of course all evidence is considered 1/2
Chief Executive of the Magistrates Association, Jon Collins, called the criticism “unhelpful and unfortunate”.
Penney, originally from Neath, applied for the unpaid role as a magistrate after spotting a recruitment flyer in the store where he works. He completed a law degree in 2017 but tells Legal Cheek that he doesn’t harbour immediate ambitions to go into practice.
Speaking before the weekend’s Twitter feeding frenzy kicked off, Penney told us:
“Having a law degree I thought I may have knowledge that most magistrates don’t. However, it’s not just law that you’re applying but common sense, so having knowledge will only get you so far.”
The Swansea University graduate says that “sitting on the Bench is different to what you read in textbooks. There are so many things to bear in mind in any court case and only experience will help you — but we all have to start somewhere!”
Penny says that he’s not currently pursuing a legal career, “but wouldn’t write it off in future”. The fresh-faced beak adds that law students can gain valuable exposure to legal practice by sitting on the bench — but that shouldn’t be their sole motivation for applying. He continues:
“I would recommend the magistracy to anyone who wants to apply. Law students may gain practical experience but I wouldn’t encourage people to sign up just for the time you’re at university and then resign. It’s not advised. The magistracy is recruiting for the future and as such needs people who are willing to sit for years to come. And you can combine it with full-time job.”
The average age of a magistrate is just under 60. Of the 15,000 magistrates in England and Wales, just 92 are aged under 30. Official statistics show just one magistrate between 18 and 29 in the West Glamorgan area — presumably Penney himself.
But Penney is not the youngest person ever to sit on the bench. Last year, Legal Cheek interviewed English student Nicky Stubbs, who became a magistrate aged 19.
Pilot part of a more flexible approach to work, says magic circle player
Clifford Chance is to offer some of its lawyers the option to take two months of unpaid leave as it looks to create a more flexible working environment.
Starting from this week, lawyers who are eligible for the pilot can apply for two months unpaid holiday during the 2019/20 financial year. Clifford Chance confirmed that the test run is open to London-based associates and senior associates in its finance, capital markets and TMT teams, as well as lawyers in its Spain, Italy and Istanbul offices.
On the question of whether a Clifford Chance lawyer could take advantage of the programme on a rolling basis, effectively working 10 out of 12 months each year, a spokesperson for the firm told Legal Cheek: “That’s not the current intention, but we will review fully once we have the feedback from the pilot.”
Meanwhile, the Canary Wharf-headquartered outfit revealed a second pilot programme aimed at welcoming ex-Clifford Chance lawyers back into the fold. The firm said alumni lawyers with the right skills will be able to apply to work on some of its projects, with the option to work remotely where appropriate.
Reflecting on the firm’s two-pronged approach to work flexibly, referred to collectively as Clifford Chance Choice, Laura King, partner and global head of people and talent, said:
“Clifford Chance prides itself on providing the best advice to clients on their most complex and critical work. People are our most valuable asset and we work hard to attract and develop the brightest and best. And with over 8,000 registered alumni working in over 3,000 organisations across 100 different countries, our alumni bring a wealth of experience and insights in every sector and region of the globe.”
Gave ‘misleading information to the police’, according to agreed outcome
An ex-law firm partner has been struck off after he failed to report a drug-related conviction to the profession’s regulator.
Lee Lipson, a former litigation and insolvency partner at Manchester’s BPS Law, but who worked as an assistant solicitor at the firm from September 2016 to August 2017, was handed a conditional caution in April 2016 for possessing cocaine and cannabis.
In his interview with police, the “experienced” solicitor claimed he had not taken the cocaine and that he was using the cannabis to help alleviate pain caused by a “neurological condition”.
Lipson failed to report his conviction to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), which was instead notified by police, according to an agreed outcome published by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT).
However, in a subsequent phone call with the SRA, Lipson said he’d actually confiscated the drugs from his partner, who had allegedly spiked his drink with some of them for being “in her view, self righteous!”
Fast forward to March 2017, Lipson was convicted of a further drug-related offence, this time for driving under the influence of cocaine. He was sentenced to 12 weeks in prison, suspended for 12 months and disqualified from driving for 18 months.
In a non-agreed mitigation, Lipson said that he was suffering from an addiction to prohibited drugs at the time of the misconduct for which he was seeking treatment.
In approving the decision to strike Lipson from the roll, the SDT noted he was “directly responsible for the matters which led to the allegations against him” and that his conduct “will inevitably have caused significant harm to the reputation of the legal profession”. It continued:
“The fact he gave misleading information to the police in the course of his interview on 9 April 2016 was a significant departure from the standards of ‘complete integrity, probity and trustworthiness’ to be expected from a solicitor.”
Two lawyers have launched what is understood to be the UK’s first animal protection law firm.
Regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), Advocates for Animals is aiming to make a “huge difference” to the welfare of animals by ensuring “the law relating to animal protection is complied with in the way parliament intended”.
According to its website, animal protection laws seek to balance the rights of animals against human interests, which can include “cheap meat, research, entertainment, clothing, religious or cultural tradition”. This, according to the firm, is unfair on their furry-clientele because “human beings get to decide when their interest trumps that of animal welfare and it is no surprise that welfare is often relegated in importance. It continues:
This, allied to technological and commercial secrecy, explains the exponential increase in animal suffering at the hands of human beings, despite attitudes being generally more enlightened.”
The firm’s co-founders are David Thomas and Edie Bowles. Thomas, a former partner at a West End law firm, specialises in EU and international animal law, and currently sits as a part-time judge. He is the former chair for the RSPCA. Meanwhile, ex-intellectual property solicitor Bowles now specialises in animal protection law and advises organisations including the Vegan Society and Cruelty Free International.
Commenting on the launch, Thomas said: “It is a salutary thought that, because of technological developments allied to commercial secrecy and huge international trade, humankind undoubtedly causes far more suffering to animals than 200 years ago when a man could beat his horse to death simply because it was his. Lawyers can help redress the balance.”
Businesses who use the techy-buzzword tend to attract greater levels of investment, report finds
A whopping 40% of Europe’s artificial intelligence (AI) start-ups don’t actually use any AI technology, according to a new report which delves beyond the PR puffery and examines the hype surrounding the legal industry’s buzzword of the moment.
The report, produced by MMC Ventures, a London-based investment firm, examined the business operations of 2,830 AI start-ups across Europe, using a combination of public information and interviews with executives. Despite many being described as AI-focused, researchers were unable to find any evidence of the robot-syle tech at 40% of the start-ups.
There appears to be a financial incentive for start-ups to trumpet their use of AI, too, with the median funding round for an AI-branded business last year roughly 15% higher than a traditional software start-up, according to the report. Moreover, AI start-ups secured higher valuations compared to other software businesses.
Highlighting the rise in AI’s popularity, the report reveals that in 2013, just one in 50 new start-ups promoted their use of AI. Today, one in 12 put it at the heart of their business.
The legal profession has embraced AI with open arms. Some City law firms have launched their own in-house tech hubs, which can accommodate a range of businesses, including AI start-ups, while others have invested six and even seven-figure sums in externally-developed AI products.
There does, however, appear to be a disconnect between the marketing noise and the experiences of lawyers on the ground. In a recent comment piece for Legal Cheek, one associate at a so-called tech-savvy law firm revealed that his exposure to “machine learning” technology was “simply repackaged ‘CTRL + F’ software.”
Super-exam was given go-ahead by LSB despite calls to delay
A group of junior lawyers have expressed concerns over the Legal Services Board’s (LSB) decision to approve the regulator’s application to introduce a centralised super-exam.
Responding to the legal watchdog draft business plan 2019/20, the Junior Lawyers Division (JLD) noted that under the Legal Services Act 2007, the LSB has the power to refuse an application only if it is satisfied that one of the “refusal criteria” has been met. This includes “granting the application would be contrary to the public interest” and “protecting and promoting the interests of consumers”.
The JLD noted that the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s (SRA) application to introduce sweeping changes to legal education, namely the Solicitors Qualifying Examination (SQE), was approved by the LSB in March 2018. This came despite the Justice Committee requesting it delay its decision for six months, “to enable the SRA’s application to be given more careful scrutiny”.
The JLD continued: “Given the strength, breadth and nature of opposition to the SRA’s SQE application, the JLD is concerned that either the LSB misapplied the refusal criteria or that the refusal criteria themselves are inadequate. If the former, then the absence of an appeal or oversight mechanism in the act is a problem which needs to be addressed. If the latter, then the refusal criteria themselves need amendment. Either way, the JLD would ask that the LSB does revisit the relevant legislative framework and make a request to the Ministry of Justice to investigate this.”
In November 2018, the SRA revealed students will “likely” pay between £3,000 and £4,500 to sit the new solicitor super-exam. However, these figures do not include preparation course fees, which are likely to add thousands onto the final training bill. At the time, JLD chair, Amy Clowrey, told Legal Cheek: “The JLD has major concerns about the cost of the SQE. This will certainly impact negatively upon those from a low socio-economic background, particularly if funding options are unavailable.”
The super-exam will replace both the Graduate Diploma in Law (GDL) and Legal Practice Course (LPC), and is set to come into force in autumn 2021.
Government announces measures to prevent victims being silenced by using NDAs
Professor Richard Moorhead
Non-disclosure clauses that deliberately attempt to “improperly stifle the revealing of misconduct” or “inhibit or shape the way someone engages” with the criminal process, even indirectly, are “probably criminal, and probably in breach of professional rules of professional misconduct”, argues Richard Moorhead, professor of law and ethics at University College, London.
Moorhead, who was one of a number of witnesses, also criticised lawyers’ tendency to prioritise their client’s interests over the public interest in the administration of justice and the protection of the rule of law. He said that the balance between those obligations was “a little bit out of kilter” among lawyers in practice.
Moorhead took the opportunity too to admonish the Law Society for its “rather weak” guidance on the use of NDAs labelling Chancery Lane “cheerleaders of a certain view” which was, he argued, “to their longer term detriment”.
The session comes in the same week that the Business Minister, Kelly Tolhurst, announced new measures to “put an end to the unethical use” of NDAs. They include clarifying that, legally-speaking, NDAs cannot prevent someone from speaking to the police to report a crime and ensuring that an individual is specifically told about their rights in relation to confidentiality before signing. The aim, according to a statement is that “a person is in full possession of all the relevant facts; this will help to prevent employees from being duped into signing gagging clauses which they were unaware of.”
Tolhurst said: “Many businesses use non-disclosure agreements and other confidentiality agreements for legitimate business reasons, such as to protect confidential information. What is completely unacceptable is the misuse of these agreements to silence victims, and there is increasing evidence that this is becoming more widespread. Our new proposals will help to tackle this problem by making it clear in law that victims cannot be prevented from speaking to the police or reporting a crime and clarifying their rights.”
Joanna Bennett, Garry Green, Lisa Busch QC, Stephanie Hill and Anitra Hussain
At last month’s ‘How to become a human rights lawyer’ event at The University of Law’s (ULaw) Bloomsbury campus, a panel of experts shared their stories from practice. Here are five things you need to know.
1. Demonstrate drive
An interest in protecting human rights is what draws many to the law, but only a select few manage to forge a career in this fascinating and important branch of the profession. Getting ahead in this coveted area of law requires not only intelligence and excellent legal skills, but drive, passion and a commitment to the principles of justice.
For Garry Green, a criminal defence barrister at Doughty Street Chambers and one of five speakers at the event, it was the community he grew up in and how his experiences and that of others drove his passion for justice and human rights. “Human rights has a small ‘h’ as well as a capital ‘H’ — it’s important that you think about what’s local to you,” advised Green.
The community he grew up in suffered social blight from unfair school exclusions to unfair treatment in the justice system to disproportionate stop-and-search practices. Observing these “everyday” injustices spurred Green to develop a career specialising in human rights. “I can now represent and communicate the stories of those that have had similar experiences and that’s what drives me,” he explained.
Joanna Bennett, a solicitor in Hodge Jones & Allen’s civil liberties team, noted a similar experience. “It’s really important that public bodies are held to account, and where I grew up that didn’t really happen. I’ve seen how abuse of state power can affect a community and that spurs me on.”
2. Consider postgraduate study
Former barrister Anitra Hussain, who teaches civil litigation and judicial review at ULaw, advised budding human rights lawyers to consider the value of postgraduate study. She completed a masters in international human rights shortly after finishing her undergraduate degree, and explained some of the advantages of doing so. “It will broaden your understanding of the field, and as a practitioner, you can apply your knowledge across different areas,” said Hussain, who presides over human rights and tort claims as a deputy district judge.
Some students may be deterred by cost but Hussain, who has over 30 years’ experience in human rights law, stressed the course is not “inaccessible”. She’s been involved in developing ULaw’s new masters in international human rights which launches in September. Flexibility is paramount in the year-long course; students can elect to study face-to-face and online.
“Think carefully about the focus of your dissertation,” advised Cornerstone Barristers’ Lisa Busch QC, who has built a significant practice in human rights law during her 18 years at the bar. “Think outside the box,” she said. “Don’t focus on historical issues, rather focus on topical issues such as climate change and the impact this is having on migration. A masters in human rights is very popular among students and requires originality of thought to make the most out of it.”
3. Solicitor v barrister
Deciding whether to qualify as a solicitor or barrister can be difficult and it’s no different for wannabe human rights lawyers. The bar was always an attractive career path for Busch who admitted “the words ‘line manager’ fill me with horror!” Barristers do advocacy, both written and oral; they are self-employed and receive instructions from solicitors to represent clients in court, she summarised.
By way of comparison, Stephanie Hill, a solicitor in Leigh Day’s human rights department, explained the solicitor route was much better suited to her. “I love the routine of going in to the office, having a desk, working in teams with colleagues, meeting with clients and not having to do my own accounts!” It seems then that students should do some self-reflection before considering which route to take.
When it comes to writing applications, “don’t underestimate the importance of making sure you are very familiar with the two different professions at play”, warned Busch. It’s also important to remember the divided line between the two professions is no longer “clear-cut” — solicitors can obtain their higher rights of audience to qualify as solicitor advocates, while barristers can receive instructions from a client directly.
4. Don’t chase the ‘sexy’ firms and chambers
“There is a temptation to target high-profile firms and chambers that have excellent track records and reputations,” said Doughty Street’s Green, who practises at the same set as international human rights lawyer and Hollywood style icon Amal Clooney. But it’s important to remember that “small can sometimes be beautiful too — what may seem shiny and attractive on the outside may have a completely different culture indoors that may not suit your character or lifestyle,” said Green, who pointed to City law’s notorious sleeping pods as an example.
How can students acquire such insight? “Firms and chambers are willing to offer work placements and mini-pupillages. This is your chance to get an insight into their culture,” he explained.
5. Bring something extra
“The thing that distinguishes one applicant from the next is evidencing their commitment through work experience”, said Green. “Despite excellent grades your application may not result in success if it is not supported by valuable work and/or life experience.” This doesn’t have to be in the ‘sexy’, headline-grabbing areas of human rights law. Green was concerned about the exclusion rates of black youth and so decided to teach voluntarily at a supplementary school local to him. “Think about what riles you then go out there and make a difference,” he stressed.
ULaw’s Hussain encouraged students to consider acting as lay representatives — “it’s one way of getting experience and setting yourself apart.” Lay reps take on small cases in the county court for claims up to £10,000.
A fundamental skill for any practising lawyer is good communication skills. But when you’re dealing with the universal nature of human rights and advising clients whose first language may not be English — things can get tricky. That’s something Hill has had to contend with. A native English speaker herself, she described the difficulty of having to rely on an interpreter. “It already feels quite intrusive when you’re asking the client about traumatic, personal things in English — having a third person involved adds that extra level of difficulty.”
Before she trained at Leigh Day, Hill worked full-time while studying the Legal Practice Course (LPC) part-time. This left little time to undertake many extra-curricular activities, but she did develop important soft skills such as time-management as a result. Before Busch joined the bar, she juggled three jobs: paralegal and freelance work alongside a research assistant role at the Law Commission, which involved a daily commute from Oxford down to London. However, the combined experience helped prepare her for the stresses and strains of pupillage (which she found “a bit of doddle compared to that!”) “Be determined,” she advised. “If you work hard you will succeed.”
Hodge Jones & Allen’s Bennett is a case in point. Bennett was determined to succeed in actions against the police so she “knocked down doors” at every firm specialising in this area and sent countless letters. “I knew nothing was going to stand in my way,” said Bennett, who eventually secured a paralegal position at a small firm where she then qualified and 11 months later, led her to the role she’s in today.
Simone Burns flew into a rage after being refused booze, court hears
A human rights lawyer who hit headlines last year after footage emerged of her verbally abusing cabin crew on a London-bound flight has pleaded guilty to being drunk on an aircraft and assault by beating.
Simone Burns, known as Simone O’Broin, was flying as a business class passenger on an Air India flight from Mumbai to Heathrow last November when cabin crew refused to serve her more alcohol.
According to reports, the 50-year-old from Hove was initially served three bottles of wine with breakfast but yelled “I’m a f****** international lawyer” when she was denied more by Air India staff, Uxbridge Magistrates’ Court heard.
Prosecuting, Lauren Smith, said: “She was shouting that she was a ‘f****** international lawyer’ and telling staff to ‘f*** off'” and called them ‘f****** Indian money-grabbing c****’.”
It’s also been reported that the lawyer spat in the face of a cabin supervisor and smoked a cigarette in the toilets.
Magistrate Robert Della-Sala told Burns:
“The disruption was clearly over a long period of time, the level of racist abuse was prolonged and unwarranted — there’s no excuse for that. The spitting in the face must have been one of the most awful things that can happen to anybody, given the transmission of diseases.”
Burns will be sentenced on April 4 at Isleworth Crown Court.
Richard Collins heads for the exit not long after predecessor
The head of policy at the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) is leaving after only a couple of months in post. The move comes as the regulator gears up for a massive shift in how solicitors are trained, with a new qualifying ‘super-exam’ a couple of years away.
A spokesperson for the SRA confirmed to Legal Cheek today that Richard Collins, a nine-year veteran of the organisation, is leaving his job. Collins is responsible for policy and education at the regulator.
Former SRA policy supremo Crispin Passmore left at the end of 2018 to start a consultancy business — advising on the very legal education reforms he helped to shape. The regulator said at the time that Collins would take up Passmore’s mantle on educational work from the beginning of 2019 “as we move into the implementation phase of our policy and education reform programmes”.
But Collins is now off to pastures new as well. The experienced exec will join the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, having worked at the SRA in various roles since September 2010.
The move comes at a time when the SRA is grappling with the mammoth task of overseeing a new, centralised assessment for all would-be solicitors. The Solicitors Qualifying Examination (SQE) is due to be launched in September 2021. Students who have started a law degree before then will have the option to qualify under the old system up until 2032.
A panel of South West lawyers discuss the departure from the London-centric vision of yesterday
From left to right: Claire Revell, Stephen Dilley, Zoe King and James Sutherland
It wasn’t that long ago that your standard law firm comprised desktop computers and landlines, perhaps with a dial-up internet connection tying lawyers to their desk during their working day. Scroll forward a few years and you’ll see roaming lawyers with affordable, portable laptops and smartphones tapping into widely available Wi-Fi and rapid 5G. Law firms are redesigning their offices to be “agile-ready” as Stephen Dilley, a commercial litigation partner at Womble Bond Dickinson described it at last month’s ‘Secrets to Success’ event with The University of Law (ULaw) in Bristol.
The result is transformative: lawyers are mobile and can take their work ‘to go’. “Geography matters much less than it ever used to,” Dilley told an audience of over 60 students. For example, partners can spend most of their day working in coffee shops between meetings, he adds. For James Sutherland, a real estate litigation partner at Burges Salmon, this is ideal when travelling to meet clients. “I probably get more work done on the train between Bristol and London than I do when I’m in the office for a comparable period of time.” Transformative too because agile working is a boon to diversity, Claire Revell, a senior associate in RPC’s insurance team, noted. By offering lawyers greater flexibility in how they work, legal practice becomes more accessible to those facing barriers to entry, such as people with disabilities or caring responsibilities.
There is a flipside to all this mobility, however, Sutherland noted: clients know you’re always connected and so expect a quicker turnaround. “Clients have got very used to asking a question and expecting an answer certainly in a day, if not within a number of hours,” Sutherland observed. Before with written correspondence, there was always a “delay period” when letters were sent. Now, with emails and instant messaging this accepted period has dramatically decreased. “How you deal with that, while still delivering the quality and thought that clients still expect you to put in, is a growing challenge and one which I don’t think is going away,” Sutherland added.
Such pressure is the consequence of changing expectations of clients who are “looking much closer” at what their lawyers are doing. There is an increasing pressure to be more cost-effective, said Revell. Even more so in light of growing competition from Big Four accountancy firms, whose legal divisions enjoy potentially huge global reach. In order for law firms to stay on top, they have to be bigger, offer broader services and possess deeper skill sets, Dilley said. Sutherland agreed: gone are the days of lawyers being “ivory tower” professionals. Instead, lawyers must become hands-on “business advisors” who can draw on a spectrum of specialised services in order to advise their clients, he added.
As the expectations of lawyers change, so do the expectations put on prospective candidates. In order to become a “well-rounded lawyer of the future”, Zoe King, dean of ULaw’s Bristol and Exeter campuses recommended always saying “yes” to opportunities that allow interaction with legal practice — whether it be through career events or mooting. Doing so will help develop transferrable skills that can bring “added value” beyond the “bare minimum” of gaining legal qualifications, she added.
The panel also identified a departure from the London-centric vision of yesterday, with law firms engaged in ongoing dialogue about what work can be done in their regional offices. Bristol is a “great legal hub” that is seeing ever-higher quality work on a par with that found in the Capital, Revell observed. The only type of work that can’t be exported, according to Dilley, is “London-sticky” work that can be completed only by those in the City with a “narrow, but deep specialism”.
The panel wholeheartedly endorsed Bristol as a really good example of the modern legal practice in action: flexible working spaces and a healthier attitude towards work/life balance compared to London offices. Dilley stated that magic circle firm lawyers are expected to put in a minimum of 1800 hours a year, but most aim for 2200-2300 hours. Although “very well remunerated”, these lawyers, in Dilley’s experience, were “completely burnt out”.
Bristol also reflects the modern outlook of firms encouraging greater diversity by offering apprenticeships — alternative routes into the profession available at all three firms on the panel. While Sutherland, whose firm is three years into its first apprenticeship scheme, stressed this “complementary” route is unlikely to cause massive upheaval, it’s an alternative pathway that bypasses the “debt and the cost” that “undoubtedly” comes with the traditional training contract model.
Sham Uddin’s online exploits show he has ‘no regard or respect’ for his own legal career, says ex-Allen & Overy solicitor Melanie Daniels
Youtube
A former magic circle lawyer has taken to LinkedIn over the weekend to criticise the creative exploits of a barrister.
Posting to LinkedIn on Friday, Birmingham-based lawyer Sham Uddin said he was nearly mugged earlier that day — or so he thought — when he was approached by two hooded-men outside his home. Continuing, Uddin goes on to reveal that the two mystery men were not muggers at all but fans just wanting to say hello.
Responding to the barrister’s story, ex-Allen & Overy solicitor turned social media expert Melanie Daniels referred to an episdoe of If You Dont Mind, a TV show presented by Uddin and which aired on NTV Europe, a channel “for the Bangladeshi community worldwide”.
The half-hour show sees Uddin, who describes himself on LinkedIn as a “Solicitor, Barrister, Share trader, Writer, Actor & presenter”, perform several musical numbers and, at one point, sport a blonde wig and false teeth.
Taking a pop at Uddin, the former commercial property specialist (screenshot below) said: “[W]ith videos like these, you clearly have no regard or respect for your legal career or professional reputation. Shame as you doubtless put effort in to qualify. What a waste.” Hitting back, Uddin said: “Innit. Your comments touch my heart”, before adding: “I don’t know this person, never interacted with her in any way before.”
Returning fire, Daniels, who left A&O in 2003 and now lives in Switzerland, claimed Uddin’s profile was brought to her attention as an example of “another total twit on LinkedIn ruining the platform”. “As I am now getting your poor quality followers all trying to connect with me, wish I’d never commented”, she added.
Several back-and-forths later, Uddin made a further, seperate post, this time urging fans to “enjoy” content and to refrain from making “offensive comments”, along with a rather fetching painting of a Bengal tiger. He continued: “The tiger & it’s [sic] connections on Linkdin [sic] will take you out of your lair & will not show you mercy.”
Daniels declined to comment, while Uddin didn’t respond to our requests for comment.
Unsurprisingly, this isn’t the first time Uddin has graced the pages of Legal Cheek. Most recently, the barrister came under fire for using a Ferrari to help promote his new chambers. While some applauded the use of the flashy red motor, one LinkedIn user wrote: “I think this moron should be put out of business completely!!!”
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has doubled down on its decision to prosecute a former trainee solicitor for fraud despite being the one to bring the misconduct at the firm to the regulator’s attention.
In a letter to the Junior Lawyers Division (JLD) (in full below), the regulator said it aims to act fairly and proportionately for everyone, whilst getting the right outcome to adequately protect clients and the public from risk and uphold confidence in the profession. This, the SRA stressed, “can sometimes require making difficult decisions and a careful balancing act”.
The regulator’s letter comes in response to concerns from the JLD that “vulnerable” rookie lawyers were not being afforded the relevant levels of protection under the regulator’s current approach.
In an open letter to the SRA, the JLD cited two recent rulings by the High Court and Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT).
Sovani James, a former junior solicitor was struck off last year for forging legal documents in an attempt to show that a client’s case was progressing. This despite the SDT hearing claims that James’ “toxic and uncaring” firm had adopted a “sudden focus on financial return on employees”.
The JLD also referenced the more recent case of Emily Scott, a former trainee solicitor who was struck off despite the SDT accepting she’d been “deceived, pressured, bullied and manipulated” by a senior lawyer at her former firm. Scott, who eventually blew the whistle on her firm’s misconduct, was found to have acted dishonestly in matters concerning client funds.
In response to this, the SRA said:
“In the cases in question, you have highlighted the powerful judicial comments describing the pressures the individuals were under and the unhealthy environments in which they worked. In both cases, their circumstances were taken into account and balanced against their culpability.”
Continuing, the regulator stressed that “in appropriate cases we are able to — and have — found that a solicitor’s mental health was such that could be held responsible for their actions; or that their workplace environment, or lack of support or supervision, has excused professional mistakes or failures in judgment.
The letter, signed by SRA’s chief executive, Paul Philip, comes just weeks after the regulator revealed it was reviewing its whistleblower’s charter, specifically the guidance relating to the reporting of sensitive information and the protections afforded to those who come forward. At the same time, Philip defended the decision to strike off Scott, telling journalists that sanction fell within a range of “reasonable outcomes” for the tribunal.
Junior Lawyer Division committee member, Kayleigh Leonie, will be speaking at the mental health and wellbeing panel session during this year’s Legal Cheek Future of Legal Education and Training Conference on Wednesday 22 May at Kings Place London. Tickets (first release) are available to purchase at the rate of £240 + VAT.
Extravaganza takes place at the City of London’s iconic Cheesegrater
Excitement is brewing ahead of the most enjoyable legal bash of the year.
Guests will ascend the glass-panelled lifts of the Cheesegrater, the tapering tower officially known as the Leadenhall Building, for the Legal Cheek Awards 2019 sponsored by BARBRI International.
The exclusive ceremony takes place on the evening of Thursday 21 March in the iconic London landmark’s 42nd Floor events venue.
Following a prosecco and canapé reception, the evening will kick off with a short presentation of the findings of Legal Cheek‘s Solicitors Qualifying Exam (SQE) survey. Then a short film produced exclusively for the event by the Legal Cheek team will be shown.
After guests refresh their glasses it’ll be time to announce the winners of our 23 shortlists. Legal Cheek student campus ambassadors will present the gongs alongside award sponsors and legal celebrities, including Love Island solicitor Rosie Williams and barrister and activist Charlotte Proudman. Free-flowing drinks and deluxe canapés will be in plentiful supply to celebrate the top-trainee rated law firms and chambers of the year. The night’s 300 guests will network to the backdrop of London’s night skyline and the glamorous surrounds of the UK’s highest dedicated events space.
Ahead of the glitzy ceremony, we caught up with a number of our sponsors and celebrity judges to gauge why they’re looking forward to the hottest event in the legal calendar.
Sarah Hutchinson, BARBRI International’s managing director
“BARBRI is delighted to present the award for ‘The Trainee and Junior Lawyer Firm of the Year 2019’. This award is the best measure of success in the recruitment and development of the next generation of the legal profession, because it is voted for by the future lawyers themselves. It is well-deserved recognition for the expertise and dedication of the winning team.”
Charlotte Proudman, academic, activist and human rights barrister at Goldsmith Chambers
Best Legal Cheek Journal contribution 2019 judge
“I’m really excited to meet the next generation of young lawyers at the cutting edge of social legal issues. Reading their articles helps us older lawyers keep our ear to the ground, knowing what those in their twenties think of the law.”
Elizabeth Rimmer, CEO of LawCare
“We’re delighted to present the award for ‘Best Law Firm for Work/Life Balance 2019’ and look forward to the night, which is always a great opportunity to meet new people and find out more about the nominees.”
Sara Duxbury, business psychologist and head of commercial at Carter Corson
“We know how challenging it can be for partners in law firms having to juggle fulfilling the commercial needs of their role in the firm with wanting to remain available to those around them to offer advice, guidance and support. That’s why we’re excited to be presenting the award for ‘Best Law Firm for Partner Approachability 2019’, to reward and recognise those law firms who advocate and encourage their leaders to be visible, engaging and supportive to their teams.”
Camilla Avery, head of HR and advocacy recruitment at LPC Law
“Journalists and lawyers are uniquely joined by their ability to research, draft, edit and present often complex information, either to inform or entertain the reader or persuade a judge of your client’s case. Accordingly, LPC Law is delighted to recognise the sterling efforts of the nominees for the ‘Best Legal Cheek Journal Contribution 2019′ award and we look forward to announcing the winner on the night.”
Helen Ford, managing director of BarSquared
“We recognise that the quality and variety of work that we do has played a big part in our success. It motivates our staff, whilst broadening our experience. We all thrive in a positive and challenging environment, so we’re delighted to sponsor the award for ‘Best Chambers for Quality of Work 2019’.”
Aberdeen’s Robert Gordon University
We're looking forward to hear what the panel of speakers from @burgessalmontrainees @wbd_careersuk @lifeinalawfirm and @u_law have to say 
