Freshfields has become the fifth and final magic circle law firm to reveal its spring retention score.
From a March qualifying cohort of 41, the Anglo-German giant today confirmed it had made 35 offers. Thirty-two rookies put pen to paper on permanent deals, handing the 28-office-outfit a retention score of 78%.
The Fleet Street firm, which offers 80 training contracts annually, is one of the City’s more consistent retention performers given its sizeable trainee intake. Freshfields recorded a result of 83% (34 out of 41) and 74% (31 out of 42) in the past two rounds. However, the firm did post an uncharacteristically low rate of just 66% (27 out 41) back in autumn 2017.
In our Trainee and Junior Lawyer Survey 2018-19, the firm bagged an A* for its lavish perks which include no less than an on-site doctor, dentist, masseuse and sushi chef, as well as access to a free in-house gym, and As for its training, quality of work, peer support and social life. The City outfit is shortlisted in two categories at the Legal Cheek Awards, held next week at London’s iconic Cheesegrater.
How does Freshies’ 78% spring score stack up against its magic circle rivals’?
Sana Musharraf is said to have sent excessive messages, made allegations to the SRA and even accused him of rape
A former law student at the London School of Economics (LSE) embarked on a campaign of stalking against a top government lawyer after he refused to convert to Islam to marry her, a court was told.
Sana Musharraf is said to have first met Jason Whiston when she attended one of his guest lectures at the Russel Group university. Initially striking up a friendship, 55-year-old Whiston and his then long-term partner, Shivani Jegarajah, invited the 33-year-old ex-law student to stay at their home in southwest London after she had trouble at LSE’s halls of residence, The Times (£) reports.
Isleworth Crown Court heard how Jegarajah, a prominent human rights barrister, later moved out of the property and Whiston entered into a relationship with Musharraf. It is reported that the couple were in a relationship for two years before Whiston, a part-time lecturer and the former deputy director of the Government Legal Department (GLD), refused to convert to Islam to marry her.
Prosecuting, Blackfriars Chambers’ Carole Fern told the court: “Ms Musharraf said she could not marry someone who was not a Muslim. He investigated it but felt he could not commit to another religion.”
Whiston, a tax law specialist, then entered into a new relationship with Tamara Mohammed, a doctor who met on a dating website and has since married. The report states that between June 2017 and February 2018 the ex-law student allegedly sent her ex-lover “an excessive number of messages, made unannounced visits to his home and office and made allegations to his friends, family, office and even the Solicitors Regulation Authority”.
Musharraf, who was charged with stalking in February last year, also claimed to have been raped by Whiston and threatened suicide, however, police ruled out charging him after finding that the former law student had, among other things, “a propensity for dishonesty”.
Fern continued: “Ms Musharraf accepts all these contacts occurred. What she says is her actions are effectively reasonable.” Musharraf denies any wrongdoing.
LSE has been approached for comment. The trial continues.
Comments on this article are closed for legal reasons.
International law firm Hogan Lovells has posted a spring 2019 retention score of 90%.
From a qualifying cohort of 29, Hogan Lovells confirmed that 26 soon-to-be associates were staying put. The firm, which dishes out around 50 training contracts each year, said that its corporate team will receive the lion’s share of the talent with 11 newly qualified (NQ) lawyers, while nine join its litigation, arbitration and employment department. Three are competition/global regulatory bound, two join finance and one starts NQ life in Hogan Lovells’ IP team. All roles are London-based.
In terms of remuneration, Hogan Lovells’ latest recruits will start on £78,000, up from a year two trainee salary of £50,000. First-year rookies currently receive £45,000.
Turning to previous retention performances, the 48-office-outfit posted an impressive autumn 2018 result of 96% (27 out of 28), although one NQ was placed on a fixed term contract. This followed similarly strong scores of 78% (25 out of 32), 80% (24 out of 30) and 79% (23 out of 29).
As for lawyer life at Hogan Lovells, the outfit scored A*s for training, peer support and those all-important perks, and As for quality of work, office, canteen and social life. It mustered Bs for tech, partner approachability and work/life balance. Hogan Lovells is shortlisted in three categories at next week’s Legal Cheek Awards, including ‘Best Law Firm for Training 2019’.
Gordon Caplan of Willkie Farr & Gallagher charged with fraud and suspended from prestigious firm
Gordon Caplan
A senior partner at a major US law firm has been placed on leave and scrubbed from the firm website after being charged with fraud in a sensational college admission scandal.
US prosecutors have accused dozens of rich and famous Americans of paying to get their children into top universities like Yale and Stanford by cheating on exams and faking disabilities or athletic prowess.
Among them is Gordon Caplan of Willkie Farr & Gallagher, who is accused of paying $75,000 (£57,000) to bump up his daughter’s college entrance exam score.
The US Department of Justice said: “Dozens of individuals involved in a nationwide conspiracy that facilitated cheating on college entrance exams and the admission of students to elite universities as purported athletic recruits were arrested by federal agents in multiple states and charged in documents unsealed on March 12, 2019, in federal court in Boston”. Caplan’s name appears alongside dozens of other parents charged with conspiracy to commit mail fraud and honest services mail fraud.
Willkie Farr & Gallagher released a statement saying that the 52-year-old has been suspended:
“As widely reported, one of our partners, Gordon Caplan, was among the persons charged in the college admissions matter. This is a personal matter and does not involve Willkie or any of its clients. In light of the seriousness of the matter, Mr. Caplan has been placed on a leave of absence from the firm and will have no further firm management responsibilities. The firm will continue to be managed by its chairmen, Steven Gartner and Thomas Cerabino, and its executive committee. Our focus remains on our responsibilities to our clients, partners and employees”.
Prosecutors say that Caplan “participated in the college entrance exam cheating scheme by making a purported charitable donation of $75,000”. In exchange, the company running the scam allegedly arranged to supervise his daughter’s ACT university entrance exam and correct the answers after she had completed it.
The FBI released transcripts (embedded below – para 46 onwards) of phone calls between Caplan and the alleged ringleader, William Singer. Singer told the lawyer: “It’s $75,000 to get any test scores you would like to get on the SAT or ACT [exams]”.
The transcripts show Caplan admitting to some lawyerly scruples, saying that the scheme “feels a little weird” and telling Singer “keep in mind I am a lawyer. So I’m sort of rules oriented”. But ultimately, according to the charging documents, he went ahead with the payment.
Despite being co-chairman of the firm, Caplan’s profile had been removed from the Willkie website this morning. The New York-headquartered firm has around 50 lawyers in its London office and 700 worldwide.
Others caught up in the scandal include Desperate Housewives star Felicity Huffman and Full House actress Lori Loughlin. As well as cheating on exams, some students were put forward for admission as star athletes with the connivence of university coaches — even if they had never played the sport in question.
Caplan has been released on bail, putting up $500,000 (£370,000). Profit per equity partner (PEP) at Willkie Farr & Gallagher was almost $3,000,000 (£2,270,000) last year.
Read the affidavit in full below:
Commnets on this article are closed for legal reasons.
A decision on whether Allen & Overy (A&O) and US outfit O’Melveny & Myers will combine to create one of the world’s largest law firms is expected within the “coming weeks”, according to an email seen by Legal Cheek.
The update, sent to students by O’Melveny’s graduate recruitment team, reveals that a decision on whether or not to create a new transatlantic giant is “likely” to be reached in the “coming weeks”. In light of this, the email confirms that O’Melveny has temporarily suspended its current UK 2019 vacation scheme and 2021 training contract application processes.
Responding to the rumours back in August, a spokesperson for A&O told Legal Cheek: “We have been clear that developing our presence in the U.S. is a priority for us and that we have spoken to a number of law firms there. However, we do not have any developments to announce and would reiterate that we won’t comment on any particular firm until the right time.”
A&O declined to comment on the email.
If given the go-ahead, the tie-up would create a new transatlantic giant boasting over 3,000 lawyers and combined revenues of £2bn ($2.8bn).
Lawyers at the London office of US firm Dechert can now opt to wear jeans to work any day of the week following a recent tweak to its office dress code.
The firm already had a “business casual” dress policy which was updated last week to include the trendy garment. Previously, jeans were allowed at some of the global giant’s 27 offices but only on Fridays or certain parts of the year.
Dechert’s director of human resources, Caroline Bowes, told Legal Cheek: “As a forward-thinking business with an innovative culture, our change in business dress code is about inclusivity, empowering our people, and attracting the best talent.”
Despite the relaxed dress policy, lawyers will still be expected to wear business attire in court and in other appearances that call for a more formal look. In case of an unexpected work engagement, lawyers can sharpen up in suits and skirts stored in handy garment bags provided by the firm and kept in the office.
This isn’t the first time a law firm has adopted a relaxed dress code.
In an attempt to boost office cohesion following its 2017 three-way mega-merger with City duo Nabarro and Olswang, CMSimplemented a casual dress code to help its suit-favouring lawyers adapt to office life post-merger.
Travers Smith adopted a similar approach three months later when it told its lawyers they could wear “business casual” clothing when not in client meetings or conducting work on client floors.
Global firm keeps 19 out of 20 qualifying trainees
Norton Rose Fulbright’s London office
The London office of Norton Rose Fulbright (NRF) has retained 19 of its 20 trainees due to qualify this month or 95%. The global player, which takes on around 45 rookie solicitors each year, made 19 offers, all of which were accepted.
The Legal CheekFirms Most List shows that NRF’s spring qualifying cohort will start on a salary of £77,000, putting them on a cash par with their counterparts at Baker McKenzie and DLA Piper. Trainees currently earn £45,000 in year one and £49,000 in year two.
The 59-office-firm, which recently launched a new innovation-focused two-year graduate scheme, scored well in our latest Trainee and Junior Lawyer Survey, securing A*s for its training and plush Thames-side office space. It also notched up A ratings for quality of work, peer support, partner approachability and social life.
Rookie arbitrators beat fellow uni teams from Denmark, Switzerland and Poland
Two members of Cambridge University’s team prepare to make submissions
A team of Cambridge University students have won a prestigious mooting crown.
Katherine Boucher, Kathryn Handley, Gabriel Kaufmann, Glen Tay and Venus Ma emerged victorious in the White & Case London Vis Pre-Moot, a UK preparatory competition for the global Vis Moot finals, which take place each year in Vienna, Austria.
Twelve teams from no less than seven countries took part in the highly-competitive moot comp which took place on Saturday in a wet and windy City of London. The Cambridge Uni team, coached by Littleton Chambers‘ Lord David Hacking, scored the highest across three rounds of pleadings and were confirmed winners to the musical stylings of The Greatest Showman.
Stockholm University was the runner-up, while Queen Mary, University of London came third. The list of competitors included University College London (UCL), the Universities of Nottingham and East Anglia, and The Honourable Society of The Middle Temple, alongside the Universities of Copenhagen, Liège, Geneva, Versailles and Poland’s Jagiellonian University.
The prize for best individual performance was snapped up by Cambridge Uni’s Tay (pictured below), a final year law student at Homerton College. He told Legal Cheek:
“Today’s achievement is the culmination of our collective team efforts. We are very much looking forward to competing in Vienna next month.”
Glen Tay pictured alongside fellow teammate Gabriel Kaufmann
The teams were challenged on a dispute arising out of a contract of sale between two parties for prized frozen racehorse semen. Acting respectively for the claimant (a stud farm) and defendant (owners of a racehorse stable and breeding programme), they presented their arguments to a panel of top arbitrators — which included White & Case’s Mark Goodrich, barristers Frederico Singarajah from Hardwicke and Michael Stephens from Kings Chambers, and Allen & Overy associate Shreya Aren.
The London office of global law firm White & Case hosted the event, which was organised by London-based associates Benjamin Ainsley Gill, Agnieszka Zarówna and Natalie Lucas, and Angélica André, counsel in the firm’s Paris office.
Stephens told Legal Cheek the Pre-Moot and Moot finals are an excellent launchpad for would-be arbitration lawyers since it enables them to develop the critical skills required to succeed in this area of law, namely research, advocacy, teamwork, and the chance to network with colleagues of the future. He continued:
“English students competing against their European counterparts are dealing with certain rules and regulations they wouldn’t normally study in the course of undergraduate life and which don’t necessarily have effect in English law. It’s an opportunity to find out about law other than English common law.”
Ainsley Gill, co-founder of the White & Case London Vis Pre-Moot, commented:
“It has been a fantastic day and the level of participation has been extremely impressive across the board which makes it all worthwhile for us. International commercial arbitration is a big part of what we do; there wasn’t an equivalent firm to ours putting on an event like this in London and so it seemed right that we host a Vis Pre-Moot. We are already looking forward to organising next year’s! A huge thank you to all the participating teams, their coaches and all volunteer arbitrators involved.”
Maintain eye contact and avoid fidgeting, says leading expert
A leading body language expert has revealed what law firm recruiters should look out for when interviewing prospective trainees and lawyers — and it’s only fair we share them with you guys.
First up, eye contact. This is a crucial indicator of confidence, according to body language pro Robert Phipps, who has appeared on TV programmes including The Trisha Goddard Show and Big Brother’s Little Brother. But a word of warning. Phipps advises recruiters to look out for signs of bluffing, as it’s not uncommon for someone who’s faking confidence or honesty to overdo it.
Aspiring lawyers should be aware of their posture, stance, and the way they walk. Slouching implies a lack of confidence or worse, laziness, while a wider gait is typically a sign of confidence. Again, he warns recruiters to keep an eye out for candidates who overdo this in the hope of appearing confident, when they’re actually not.
Elsewhere, the body language guru reveals that confident wannabe lawyers tend to keep their head either horizontal or slightly raised, whereas self-doubters will position their head slightly lower. Moreover, candidates who jiggle their feet or legs are likely to be feeling insecure and are keen for the interview to end as quickly as possible.
He also advises recruiters be aware of micro-expressions, the brief involuntary facial movements, lasting only a fraction of a second, that candidates make before they adopt their desired expression. There’s no way of controlling them and interviewers should keep an eye out for them when asking those all-important killer questions, according to Phipps, who has produced his list of tips as part of a report for Grosvenor Casinos.
Rounding off his list of body language pointers, Phipps warns that if a candidate uses overly animated hand gestures that seem out of sync with what they’re saying, then they could be lying. This happens because people who are prone to telling porkies will use gestures to buy time while they figure out what to say next.
A junior lawyer turned MP who was jailed for perverting the course of justice has produced a bizarre YouTube video maintaining her innocence and vowing to be a “voice of change in parliament”.
Fiona Onasanya, a commercial property law specialist, was jailed for three months in January after she was found guilty of lying to the police over a speeding ticket. The 35-year-old, who was expelled by the Labour party but continues to sit as the independent MP for Peterborough, was released last month after serving one-third of her sentence.
Onasanya now faces a by-election if more than 10% of her constituents — roughly 7,000 — sign a recall petition opening today.
Ahead of the petition, the Eversheds (now Eversheds Sutherland) lawyer released a two-minute YouTube video in which she protested her innocence. Speaking in front of what appears to be a New York City backdrop, Onasanya said: “Now I have this opportunity, I would like to ask: people have asked for my resignation but what would you do if you were innocent?”
Onasanya, who earlier this month lost a challenge against her conviction for perverting the course of justice, continued:
“Would you sit back and accept it? Would you accept it knowing in your heart of hearts that you are innocent? Or would you fight to clear your name? I am telling you I am innocent and I will continue to pursue avenues to clear my name. If you wish for me to continue as your independent member of parliament, I am willing and able to do so. But the choice is now in your hands.”
At trial, Onasanya told the court she assumed she was in Westminster when her Nissan Micra was photographed by a speed camera doing 41mph in a 30mph zone in Thorney, near Peterborough, on 24 July last year. The prosecution, however, maintained that she had schemed with her brother to deceive police by claiming a former tenant, Alek Antipow, was driving the vehicle. Inquiries later revealed Antipow was at home with his parents in Russia at the time.
Onasanya’s brother, Festus Onasanya, admitted three charges of perverting the course of justice a week before he was due to face trial. He was sentenced to ten months in prison.
The recall petition will remain open for six weeks.
A high-flying hedge fund lawyer “repeatedly punched” a fellow opera-goer in the shoulder after a row broke out over a coat on a seat, Westminster Magistrates’ Court heard.
Matthew Feargrieve, a lawyer at London’s MF Consultancy, an independent legal advisory business, allegedly attacked classical music lover Ulrich Engler, during a performance of Wagner’s Siegfried at the Royal Opera House on 7 October last year.
The disagreement kicked off when Engler supposedly moved a coat belonging to Feargrieve’s wife from an empty seat and onto her lap, Court News UK (£) reports.
Matthew Feargrieve
It’s Engler’s account that he asked the 42-year-old lawyer — a former partner at London law firm Withers, according to his LinkedIn — whether it was ok if he sat in the vacant seat. With Feargrieve refusing the request, Engler is said to have picked up the coat and placed it on Feargrieve’s wife’s lap.
Again according to Engler, after the coat somehow ended up on the floor, Feargrieve allegedly told him: “How dare you talk to my wife like that?”, before proceeding to punch him three times on the shoulder.
However, the experienced Oxford-educated lawyer claims that Engel had actually asked his wife whether she had paid for the vacant seat, before throwing the coat to the floor. Feargrieve’s account is that his wife, who hasn’t been named in the report, then attempted to protect the jacket by moving towards it, only for Engel to push her so that she fell back towards her husband.
Artificial intelligence is saving lawyers time, but it is also generating work
From left to right: William Preston, Adam Watson and Simon McArdle
At last week’s student careers and commercial awareness event, ‘Law, innovation and technology’, which celebrated the upcoming launch of The University of Law’s new Nottingham campus, the message was clear: as with any industry experiencing advancing technology and increasing automation, the legal profession must adapt to changing client expectations. “Your clients want you to do things quicker and to do things cheaper than you ever have done before,” said panellist Simon McArdle, partner in Shoosmiths’ commercial team. “Everyone wants a cheaper legal bill,” added fellow panellist Adam Watson, a partner in Freeths’ real estate team.
Given how much lawtech can speed things up, as seen when software is applied to a large scale document review, this changing expectation is unsurprising. As McArdle explained, this typically lengthy task, traditionally undertaken by a large team of paralegals, can be quickened by using artificial intelligence (AI) software to conduct the initial review which Shoosmiths is introducing as part of its Spotlight contract review service. “You can take a hundred page contract, pump it through the AI and it will produce a report in under 30 seconds that would take a paralegal, working full steam, a full day, maybe a day and a half to work through,” he told an audience of 40 students.
Having such tools can be particularly handy when up against tight deadlines. William Preston, an apprentice solicitor in Eversheds Sutherland’s legal technology group, recalled a “stand out case study” in which AI was used in an impending $2.25 billion (£1.71 billion) corporate acquisition. Rather than manually review 5,000 contracts, the firm turned to AI for a quicker solution. “Through AI, we delivered on time, on budget and managed to do all this in less than seven days,” said Preston.
Tech also offers opportunity for greater collaboration among lawyers. For example, Idea Drop, Eversheds Sutherland’s Facebook-style innovation crowdsourcing app, allows lawyers to share, like and rate each other’s innovative ideas to improve client service. “It’s a very good way of getting everyone to have a say in how the business is run,” Preston explained.
Where tech often experiences teething issues, however, is in delivering accurate results — with lawyers often still required to check whether generated information is correct. “It’s a brain that you have to train and it will keep getting better and better and better the more contracts you pump through it,” McArdle added. For example, Watson pointed to a recent Freeths transaction in which AI reviewed 3,000 licence agreements. While only 30-40% were accurate on its first review, this figure rocketed to 70-80% towards the end of the transaction as the AI learned through greater exposure to data.
Even as machine learning will improve and require less supervision, the panel predicted its impact on a lawyer’s work-life balance to be limited. Although AI could save time in some respects, it is also likely to generate new types of work as large volumes of data can be analysed. Ultimately, AI will just be another tool to complement the work of lawyers, Watson said.
Instead, a greater challenge to a lawyer’s work-life balance is tech-enabled connected working. McArdle traced this back to the arrival of email twenty years ago — an exciting, but disruptive tech wave that the legal profession was forced to adapt to. Departing from a system depending on the postman to deliver your work, the use of email moved towards a “24/7 culture”, McArdle recalled. This culture persists today as “now more than ever you are always contactable as a lawyer”, he added.
A drawback of being easily contactable is the pressure to a lawyer’s mental health and wellbeing. “You do need to look after yourself and you do need to find a way of switching off at the end of each day and that’s only going to get more and more challenging as time goes by,” McArdle stressed.
Yet, it is through tech-enabled connected working that lawyers can enjoy an “enormous amount of freedom” in deciding where to lay their roots, said McArdle, who operates in Shoosmiths’ Birmingham office. For Preston, who’s also based in Birmingham, tech as basic as Skype ensures that lawyers across Eversheds Sutherland’s global offices — from Manchester to Hong Kong — can easily collaborate on projects together. This freedom is particularly evident in the decline of the London-centric model of legal practice, said Watson, who’s based in Freeths’ Nottingham office. Lawyers in regional firms all over the country can enjoy high quality work exported from the Capital without the drawbacks of City life — such as unaffordable housing and long working hours.
But how does tech affect what is expected of the next generation of lawyers? Although coding isn’t essential, it does help develop practical “algorithmic thinking” when breaking down a problem and using tech to achieve a solution, said Preston, who studied coding during computer science in sixth form. While there is merit to such specialist skills, McArdle urged aspiring lawyers not to forget about the “emotional intelligence” needed when winning and managing relationships with clients. “People still buy people and they will do for the foreseeable future,” he added.
Lawyers and innovation experts give students a glimpse into the challenges and opportunities that await
From left to right: Adam Curphey, Nitish Upadhyaya, Zoe Fuller, Molly Russell and Jeremy Coleman
With law firms racing to offer game-changing tech-based solutions and clients becoming increasingly more tech-savvy, the legal market as we know it is rapidly changing. But what does this mean for the next generation of lawyers?
The role of a trainee is changing. But it’s not the case that robots will replace junior lawyers, as numerous headlines seem to suggest. Rather, “it’s about augmentation”, said Upadhyaya, who leads i2, A&O’s ideas and investment team, which produces technology prototypes to tackle pain points identified by staff and clients. Efficiency-boosting tech tools such as document review platform Kira Systems, have reduced the grunt work typically taken on by trainees, freeing them up to focus on more complex work. “It’s a great opportunity to build project management skills,” added Freshfields’ Russell, “since they’ll be juggling a lot more balls than previous generations.”
To put things into perspective, Russell, who specialises in commercial disputes, shared an example with the audience. On suitable cases, her team use predictive coding software for e-disclosure. Thousands of documents can be examined and pinpointed for review by nifty tech tools in a matter of hours — an exercise that would have previously taken several hundred paralegals and junior lawyers months to complete, she explained.
Today’s Generation Z trainees of the future, who are familiar with the online world from a very young age, should leverage their tech-savviness in legal practice. “It’s down to you to consider how to use technology to make the best impact at the firm you end up working for,” said Upadhyaya. Take the mindset you have when performing day-to-day tech-augmented tasks, such as using an app to book a cab or order a meal, and bring this to the role, advised the former litigator. “Trainees at the coalface are the ones coming up with fresh ideas and law firms can help bring them on this idea journey.”
This sentiment was echoed by Russell. The way rookies learn the law hasn’t changed, but the way they deliver advice has. For example, “they’re dealing with a lot less paper!” she quipped. On top of this Russell pointed to the agile work movement that has filtrated into legal practice and, in turn, brought about significant cultural changes within City law firms. “You might conduct some research on an iPad on a train while on the go or look things up during a client meeting,” she noted.
As law firms embrace innovation through technology to keep up with the pace of change, it’s imperative that law schools, who prepare future lawyers for the world of work, do the same. BPP launched a legal technology innovation and design module last September to plug the notable tech-shaped skills-gap on its Legal Practice Course (LPC). The module equips students not only with the digital skills the legal practice of the future will need, but also the ability to use and design technology to respond creatively to clients’ problems. “We lay the foundations and hopefully the students we send into firms can look at any piece of technology, any innovation or any issue and say ‘I know how this works and I can tackle this’,” explained BPP innovation chief Curphey.
The legal profession has embraced artificial intelligence (AI). A clutch of City law firms have launched their own in-house tech hubs, while others have invested large sums in externally-developed products. The convergence between law and computer science has seen one particular group of students catch the eye of graduate recruiters. Indeed, STEM (science, technology, engineering and maths) students are highly sought after for their specialist knowledge and transferable skills, the panel noted.
Bird & Bird’s Fuller, who specialises in intellectual property (IP) disputes involving complex technologies, is a case in point. The biochemistry grad worked as a biochemist before switching to law. “If you bring to the team a whole new skillset — market it!” she advised. That’s not to say every IP lawyer-to-be has to have studied a STEM subject to succeed. Fuller’s background might have helped in pharmaceuticals, but her practice also involves working with telecoms companies, and that, she confessed, is like learning “a whole new language!”
Technology has created a wave of new legal roles and last Wednesday’s panel were testament to this fact. Coleman worked in various tech start-ups for eight years before moving across to legal practice. Heading up the firm’s Newcastle hub, Coleman is responsible for delivering innovative client solutions through legal design. What are the priorities he thinks Generation Z should be focusing on?
“You need to be aware there is an entire marketplace out there creating tools specifically for lawyers. This role previously fell to a firm’s IT department but is now the responsibility of lawyers and their respected teams.”
Curphey, who practised as a capital markets solicitor at White & Case prior to joining BPP, pointed out that law firms are focusing their efforts on the “rounded legal team”. The successful lawyer of the future is one that will be able to work closely with project managers, software developers and innovation experts to deliver a solution, he said.
For techies interested in pursuing non-traditional legal roles, Coleman closed out with this nugget of advice:
“Find a role in which you can perform as translator — translating tech talk to legal talk and vice versa. Success in the future falls on finding two areas which might align and realising you can be the translator for those two groups and helping to break down the barriers in the way they work and conduct business.”
It’s not just jobs. Looking ahead, Coleman noted that “new practice areas will emerge that we didn’t know could exist”, and that in itself presents a plethora of opportunities for lawyer hopefuls.
In the true spirit of tech, the audience participated in a live online poll. What did they think would change the legal profession the most over the next decade? Technology got the winning vote, but flexible working arrangements and (surprise surprise) new Generation Z priorities followed closely behind.
Children of lawyers are 17 times more likely to become lawyers than children whose parents did a different job.
The figure appears in a new book on social mobility, The Class Ceiling: Why it Pays to be Privileged, by London School of Economics (LSE) assistant professor Sam Friedman and US academic Daniel Laurison.
The researchers say that the likelihood of a person becoming a lawyer is 17 times higher if either of their parents have preceded them into the law. This parental influence, they argue, is part of the reason why working class people are under-represented in the professions.
Friedman’s and Laurison’s analysis of the Labour Force Survey shows that law is the second most inheritable of around 20 professions examined, behind medicine.
Errors by courts and judges that left a couple’s final divorce decree potentially void was exposed in a judgment from the former head of the family division, who slammed the state for “washing its hands” of the problem it created by not granting legal aid to the parties to resolve their case.
A “fundamental failure” of the court process meant that a couple, known only as M and P, were granted a “wholly defective” divorce, Sir James Munby, who until July 2018 was President of the Family Division, said in a ruling this week, after court staff and judges failed to spot an error on the divorce petition.
The parties married in London on 19 September 2011. In June 2013, the husband, M, acting in person without help from a lawyer, submitted a divorce petition dated 14 June 2013 to the Willesden County Court.
M had ticked the box on the application stating that he was seeking a divorce on the grounds that the parties had “lived apart for a continuous period of at least two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition and the respondent consents to a decree/order being granted”.
The petition was returned to M on three occasions before the court was prepared to accept it due to errors in the application, and the petition was issued on 26 July 2013. No one had noticed that, at the time that the petition was issued, the couple had only been married for 22 months, and the statutory two-year period had not elapsed.
The error was not picked up by the two judges who subsequently granted the decree nisi and the decree absolute — deputy district judge Quin, and district judge Steel.
The husband M remarried a Brazilian citizen in 2015. In 2016 a member of HMCTS staff discovered the error with the divorce.
In a bid to put things right, district judge Middleton-Roy amended the divorce decree stating that is had been granted on a different basis, and said that the divorce decree remained valid.
The Queen’s Proctor, a solicitor representing the crown in the courts of probate and divorce, said that the district judge had no power to retrospectively amend the divorce and that the divorce decree was void.
In his judgment published this week, Sir James ruled that the initial error made the divorce decree “voidable, not void”. He said that decree remained valid and that district judge Middleton-Roy had been right to seek to amend the divorce decree in the way he had. The case also exposed similar failures in several other divorce cases.
Giving judgment, Sir Munby slammed the system for failing M and P, who he said are “the innocent victims of failure by the court system” and mistakes made by court staff and judges. He said:
“The focus of the hearing was, inevitably, on the difficult questions of law … But it must never be forgotten that, at the end of the day, this application affects four human beings — P, M and their new spouses — in a matter which is of transcendental importance to all of them.”
Sir James also criticised the state for washing its hands of the problem its errors had created by refusing to grant legal aid to M or P, and leaving them to rely on the good will of the solicitors and barristers who represented them without charge.
He said: “The ultimate safeguard for someone faced with the might of the state remains today, as traditionally, the fearless advocate bringing to bear in the sole interests of the lay client all the advocate’s skill, experience, expertise, dedication, tenacity and commitment. So the role of specialist family counsel, and of the specialist family solicitors who instruct them, is vital in ensuring that justice is done and that so far as possible miscarriages of justice are prevented.”
Munby continued: “May there never be wanting an adequate supply of skilled and determined lawyers, barristers and solicitors, willing and able to undertake this vitally important work. There can be no higher call on the honour of the bar than when one of its members is asked to act on behalf of a client facing the might of the state. The bar, I am sure, will never fail in its obligation to stand between crown and subject. And the same of course goes for the solicitors’ profession.”
But he said: “There is something profoundly distasteful when society, when government, relies upon this as an excuse for doing nothing, trusting to the professions to do the right thing which the state is so conspicuously unwilling to do or to provide for.”
He did criticise the Legal Aid Agency, which he said “was, no doubt, operating within the confines of a system imposed on it by others”, but he said the parties could not possibly have been expected to argue a case of this legal complexity by themselves.
“What I was faced with here was the profoundly disturbing fact that P does not qualify for legal aid but manifestly lacks the financial resources to pay for legal representation in circumstances where, to speak plainly, it was unthinkable that she should have to face the Queen’s Proctor’s application without proper representation,” he said.
He continued: “The state has simply washed its hands of the problem, leaving the solution to the problem which the state itself has created to the goodwill, the charity, of the legal profession. For what brought this matter to court was, to repeat, failures, mistakes, by the State, by the court system, and, specifically by judges.”
He added: “Moreover, the application has been mounted by an officer of the state, the Queen’s Proctor. Yet the state has declined all responsibility for ensuring that P is able to participate effectively in the proceedings.”
“Why should the state leave it to private individuals to ensure that hapless individuals like P and M, victims of the state’s failings, are able to obtain justice? Or is society in the twenty-first century content with the thought, excoriated well over a century ago by Matthew LJ, that justice, like the Ritz, is open to all?”, Munby said.
“It is deeply wrong and potentially most unfair that legal representation in a case like this, where it is a vital necessity, is available only if the lawyers, as here, agree to work for nothing.”
He thanked the solicitors, Sundeep Budwal and Paul Nuttall from Duncan Lewis and the barristers Janet Bazley QC and Katherine Dunseath from 1GC Family Law for their “professional dedication, commitment and sense of duty so conspicuously shown”.
Incident had ’emotional impact’ on complainant, Legal Ombudsman finds
A law firm has been ordered to compensate a transgender client after it referred to her by her birth name.
The law firm is understood to have misnamed the client “throughout a long letter” assessing the strength of a claim, according to a decision by the Legal Ombudsman. The finding came despite it acknowledging that “the firm had asked her how she wished to be addressed and there was nothing to show she had responded to this”.
Details of the case emerged over the weekend after a member of staff at the Legal Ombudsman, the industry watchdog which assesses complaints about legal service providers, became concerned it was “pursuing an ideological agenda”, talkRADIO reports.
Quoting the Ombudsman’s finding, the report states: “The firm then chose to refer to the complainant using her birth name throughout a long letter assessing her claim. Following that, she phoned the firm to say she felt disrespected.” The Ombudsman initially sided with the law firm, concluding that its behaviour was “reasonable”, but the ruling was later overturned on appeal.
The Ombudsman’s guidance went on to quote from Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), a US-based media monitoring organisation: “When a transgender person has transitioned and is living their life as their authentic self — that is their truth. The world now sees them as who they truly are.”
A spokesperson for the Legal Ombudsman said it “determined that the approach taken and the comments made by the firm were not reasonable, as they did not demonstrate an understanding of the issues faced by their client, or their circumstances.”
They continued: “The decision concluded that the firm should pay the complainant compensation to recognise the emotional impact of their service failing and recommended that they consider their approach, procedures and knowledge in relation to transgender matters.”
The Equality Act 2010 protects those who identify as transgender from being discriminated against unfairly, being targeted or harmed.
Welcoming the Ombudsman’s decision, the complainant, who hasn’t been named, said: “Thank you so very much for your understanding around trans issues and the journey that I am on. I wish more people were like you.”
Instagram Live interview: Ahead of Wednesday’s event, ‘Secrets to Success — Birmingham’, solicitor and vlogger Chrissie Wolfe explains why an online presence can have its advantages
Chrissie Wolfe
Building an online network through social media can boost your legal career prospects, Irwin Mitchell solicitor and vlogger, Chrissie Wolfe, tells Legal Cheek in an Instagram Live interview (embedded below).
Having a large online following, for example, can be a “valuable asset” to firms wanting to broaden their potential client pool, says the Birmingham-based personal injury specialist. Since creating Law and Broader, a YouTube channel aimed at sharing career and employability tips, Wolfe has built quite the following: nearly 2,000 subscribers on YouTube, over 3,000 connections on LinkedIn and just under 2,000 followers on Twitter. Through this network, the law and lifestyle vlogger recalls having “secured loads of referrals for work”.
There are also transferable skills from vlogging to legal practice, such as confidence and communication. Getting used to regularly talking on camera can be great practice for day-to-day discussions with clients and colleagues, Wolfe explains.
Just as important as building a network online is making industry connections in person. Wolfe, who will be speaking at this Wednesday’s event, ‘Secrets to Success — Birmingham’, advises aspiring lawyers to plan ahead in order to get the most out of careers events. She explains:
“You’ve got to know who’s going and what your goals are. What do you want to get out of the experience? Do you want to make a connection? Do you want to speak to someone from the firm that you’re planning on applying to? Do you want to set up an ongoing relationship? What is it you want to gain from the networking experience? And then you can plan your game plan for networking almost around that.”
A London-based solicitor who was jailed as part of an investigation into alleged collusion between Russia and Donald Trump’s presidential campaign team has been referred to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT), the regulator has confirmed.
The tribunal has certified that there is a case to answer and the allegations are as yet unproven.
Van der Zwaan, who is married to art critic Eva Khan, the daughter of the Ukrainian-Russian billionaire businessman German Khan, studied law at King’s College London, graduating in 2006. He was admitted to the roll in 2009 and speaks four languages: Dutch, English, French and Russian. He now works for a small boutique firm in Mayfair.
News of the regulator’s decision comes just days after special counsel Robert Mueller filed his long-awaited report into alleged collusion between Russia and Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. A US justice department official confirmed that Mueller, a former partner at the Washington law firm WilmerHale, had not recommended any further criminal charges.
Comments on this article are closed for legal reasons.
Transitioning support also available for lawyers and support staff
Both magic circlers, Linklaters and Clifford Chance, have confirmed that they have updated their insurance policies to include gender reassignment surgery cover. Linklaters’ new policy came into effect on 1 March and Clifford Chance’s will come in on 1 May 2019.
The vast majority of firms offer private medical insurance as an employee benefit. A few firms have now updated their policies to include sex change surgery. In February of last year, Legal Cheek reported that Herbert Smith Freehills (HSF) was the first firm to offer it.
Gender reassignment surgery is available on the NHS but there are waiting lists. The British Medical Journal reported last summer that numbers attending NHS clinics for gender dysphoria had grown by a staggering 240% over the previous five years.
As well as introducing the new policy, firms are also beginning to offer transitioning support and policies. Linklaters launched a toolkit as early as back in 2016 for transgender staff going through the sex transition. HSF did the same with its ‘Global Transitioning Guidelines’. Hogan Lovells was the first firm to offer a transgender workplace policy setting out what support the firm offers for transitioning individuals and practical tips for colleagues.
In a statement, Linklaters’ global head of learning and an LGBT committee representative, Patrick McCann, said:
“This step reflects the firm’s commitment to be best in class for diversity and inclusion in the legal sector, supporting our people as their employer, whatever their journey may be. The new benefit highlights the value we place on creating an inclusive workplace where everyone feels comfortable and that they belong.”
A Clifford Chance spokesperson confirmed: “It has already been agreed to update our medical insurance policy to cover gender reassignment surgery. The change will come into effect from the forthcoming renewal on 1 May 2019.”
A heckler has discovered first-hand why you should never interrupt a panel discussion chaired by one of the country’s top legal commenters.
As part of this year’s Putney Debates, a series of annual public discussions which take place at St Mary’s Church in Putney, South London, a group of leading academics and lawyers gathered to discuss judicial independence.
There was, however, a brief moment of adrenalin-fuelled excitement during the discussion when the debate’s chair, Joshua Rozenberg, confronted a heckler.
The footage, posted online earlier today by Rozenberg himself, shows a man enter the church and sit on the front row of the audience, before attempting to interrupt one of the panellists.
Ever the professional, Rozenberg can be seen immediately rising to his feet, pointing at the man, and saying: “Sit down and be quiet, otherwise we’ll have to ask you to leave!” With the man continuing to talk, the top legal commentator and Legal Cheek contributor hits back again: “You be quiet sir, or we’ll ask you to leave.”
Facing the prospect of ejection and Rozenberg’s steely gaze, it’s at this point the man finally decides to be quiet.
Gordon Caplan
From left to right: Adam Curphey, Nitish Upadhyaya, Zoe Fuller, Molly Russell and Jeremy Coleman
Great discussion between lawyers and innovation experts from Allen & Overy, @twobirdslaw, @freshfieldsbruckhausderinger and @nortonrosefulbrightstudents 
