The Single Use Carrier Bags Charges (England) Order 2015 deserves wider recognition

As carrier bag hysteria swept the UK today, the law surrounding the 5p charge has taken pedantic drafting to a whole new level.

Those responsible for creating the 20-page statutory instrument which implements the new regime weren’t taking any chances, with The Single Use Carrier Bags Charges (England) Order 2015 even defining what a carrier bag is.

It explains that the item is:

…an unused bag made of lightweight plastic material with handles, other than an excluded bag.

But what counts as an “excluded bag”? The full list of the exceptions — which include “live aquatic creatures bag” and “uncooked meat food bag” — can be enjoyed below:

According to the final page of what government lawyers may affectionately refer to as SUCBC(E)O, it would appear you can purchase your very own paper copy of this fascinating piece of legislation for the bargain price of just £6.

Form an orderly queue.

Read the legislation in full below:

The Single Use Carrier Bags Charges (England) Order 2015

Hat tips to @CarlGardner and @JackofKent.

The post New plastic bag legislation is a triumph of pedantic drafting appeared first on Legal Cheek.

Ahead of ‘Why the legal profession needs people who see the world differently’, Fletchers chief Ed Fletcher recalls how a spinal cord injury gave him a clarity that would change the course of his career

It’s normal for students who come into the legal profession to lack focus. Many are incredibly bright, but because they are young and still haven’t decided which areas of law they like, that edge is missing a little bit. On top of that they are going through this massive personal stage of development as young adults, so there is a lot to be wrestling with there. And quite understandably, it takes them a while to settle into their professional lives. I was the same.

Before starting my training contract at Fletchers, which then was a high street firm, I studied law at Aberystwyth, where I was a stalwart of the first XV rugby team. I then did my Legal Practice Course (LPC) in Chester. Like most new lawyers fresh out of their training, I was probably slightly pompous, a little bit in love with all the wig and gown symbolism of the legal profession, and just generally coasting.

Then, when I was one year qualified as a solicitor, I severed my spinal cord in a motorbike accident and my life changed. For a time I obviously had to deal with the initial trauma of the accident and spending six months in a rehabilitation centre. But when that subsided, this fire lit under me. For the first time I had a clarity about what I wanted to do with the rest of my life.

I had actually already been doing serious injury work, tentatively developing a specialism representing people who had been in motorbike accidents like the one I was to be in. But I suppose I hadn’t fully committed to it yet. Now, though, I had this new layer of empathy for my clients alongside an extra level of determination that remains with me to this day.

Meanwhile, the industry was changing. It was 1999 and Lord Woolf had just been commissioned to write his Access to Justice reports. Civil litigation was, as the Law Society Gazette would later put it, “too slow, too expensive, too uncertain and too adversarial”. We were on the cusp of a whole new era in which law firms’ costs and style of serving their clients would come under massive scrutiny — first under the Woolf Reforms and then subsequently the Jackson Reforms and the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act (LAPSO).

For me personally, with my drive to give the best possible representation to seriously injured clients, this was a huge opportunity. Out went any lawyerly pretensions and in came a determination to help my clients — or, better still, customers, because that is what they really are — get from A to B. For Fletchers, the possibilities were also massive to shape itself as an organisation that understood its role as an enabler rather than some kind of self-important end point.

And we seized the chance — early and with both hands. Within 15 years we went from being a high street firm in Southport to the biggest medical negligence law firm in the country.

As an ambitious lawyer in my late 20s and early 30s doing work that I felt huge passion for, this was exactly where I wanted to be. By embracing conditional fee arrangements, policies of ensuring that the right level of fee-earner deals with the right part of the process, and innovations in IT, we not only grew rapidly, but, most importantly, we gave our customers a better level of service. All the time, it has kept coming back to this battle to meld technical legal brilliance with sophisticated processes.

Along the way, aside from the stuff about following your passion and not being caught up in the lawyer bubble, perhaps the most important lesson I have learned is to not be afraid to make big decisions. That’s something I’d like to tell my younger self: as long as no one is going to die, go for it! And normally if something feels right in your gut, it’s going to be OK. That has been the case with our decision in 2007 to become a limited company, and with our move five years ago to take control of our own advertising and marketing.

Now, having stepped back from fee-earning work six years ago to focus on running the business full-time as chief executive, one of the key parts of my job is conveying that willingness to be bold to our young staff. Too often in life people feel shackled by the choices they think they are expected to make. But without pushing boundaries there is no innovation. My main challenge now is to set those boundaries at a level that allows people not to be scared to take the calculated risks that continue to drive the business forward.

Ed Fletcher is the chief executive of Fletchers, the UK’s largest medical negligence law firm. He will be speaking next week at ‘Why the legal profession needs people who see the world differently — Legal Cheek live, with Lord Neuberger’. Apply for a free ticket to attend here.

About Legal Cheek Careers posts.

Follow @EdwardBFletcher

The post A motorbike accident transformed me from junior lawyer coaster to driven CEO appeared first on Legal Cheek.

Lawyer-loathing Lord Sugar snubs legal sector as new contestants are revealed

The 18 new contestants who make up series 11 of BBC hit TV show The Apprentice have been revealed — and there is no representation from the legal profession.

Amstrad-guru Lord Sugar — who made it clear on last year’s show that he wasn’t a huge fan of lawyers — will put the latest batch of aspiring entrepreneurs through their paces in the new series that starts next Wednesday.

Last year, two solicitors starred in the show that sees contestants battle it out over a series of business challenges to secure an investment of £250,000 and become Sugar’s business partner.

Indeed, St Albans family lawyer Lauren Riley and ex-magic circle associate Felipe Alviar-Baquero were arguably the two stars of the show, as they wooed viewers with their intelligence, organisational skills and charm.

Lancaster University graduate Riley eventually got the boot for failing to impress Sugar during a challenge that saw the contestants market a new soft drink in New York. Riley — who has gone on to create legal communication tool The Link App — actually cited Sugar’s dislike for lawyers as a reason for her exit.

Fellow contestant Alviar-Baquero, who the nation took particularly strongly to its hearts, ditched a successful City legal career to pursue his entrepreneurial-dreams.

The former Slaughter and May lawyer, who got a first in his law degree at Kent University before going on to get a distinction in the Bachelor of Civil Law (BCL) at Oxford, also spent time at US giant Latham & Watkins.

The ex-magic circle man’s exit from the show came just two weeks after Riley’s, when he clashed with Sugar in the boardroom over a challenge that saw the contestants asked to purchase an “anatomical skeleton”. Colombian-born Alviar-Baquero, who famously returned to Sugar’s office with a cheap flat-pack skeleton, was immediately dismissed by a clearly unimpressed Sugar. The businessman claimed the lawyer was “trying to be too smart”.

Alviar-Baquero — currently listed on LinkedIn as a consultant at insurance firm INDECS — appears to have also set up a Kent-based children’s play centre called ‘Tiny Town’ since leaving the show.

Despite the lack of lawyers, this years The Apprentice cohort does contain a number of interesting professions. From boutique owner to builder, from social media entrepreneur to hair extension specialist, the series has all the hallmarks of being a good one.

The post What, no lawyers on this year’s The Apprentice!? appeared first on Legal Cheek.

City middleweights could be getting hitched

Rumours are swirling legal London that City middleweights Ince & Co and Watson Farley & Williams are set to tie the knot — creating a firm that one would expect to be called Wince & Co.

That name could be appropriate for the partners at poor old shipping and insurance firm Ince & Co, which has endured falling turnover, redundancies and a trainee rate this autumn of just 60%.

By contrast, shipping finance and aviation law specialist Watson Farley & Williams — or WFW — is doing pretty good, upping revenue and training contract numbers this year from 15 to 18.

The registration-walled Lawyer Magazine has the scoop, with Ince senior partner Jan Heuvels telling one of its reporters that his firm and WFW had “met to discuss business issues”, while denying that formal merger talks had taken place.

WFW managing partner Chris Lowe added that he had “sat down” with Ince management and “listened to what they have to say”.

If a merger did happen, it would represent quite a coup for WFW, which began life in 1981 as a breakaway from what was then Norton Rose. Ince & Co can chart its proud history all the way back to 1870.

A combined firm would bring together WFW’s £125m turnover (up by 7% last year) with Ince’s slightly less £79.4m revenue figure (down by 8% last year) to a create a 25 office shipping megafirm offering nearly 30 training contracts a year.

The question the serious legal market observers are asking themselves, though, is whether Ince & Co might hold fire on a merger with WFW in order to find another outfit with which it could create a catchier name. With the Legal Services Act allowing firms to consider tie-ups with barristers’ chambers as well as each other, some have even suggested a three way merger could be on the cards.

After all, as was observed on the RollOnFriday message board:

How about Freshfields, Ince & Co and Old Square Chambers and then they could be the Fresh Ince of Old Square?

The post Wince & Co? Rumours swirl that Ince & Co is to merge with Watson Farley & Williams appeared first on Legal Cheek.

CMS Cameron McKenna scheme one of the first to assist undergrads

International law firm CMS has revealed the winners of a law bursary scheme that sees disadvantaged state school students pocket £2,500 for every year of their law degree.

The programme — which is now in its fourth year — was launched in 2012 by the international franchised firm. The only other big City firms that Legal Cheek is aware of that sponsor undergraduates are Hogan Lovells and Mayer Brown.

The winners of this year’s bursaries, who had to be in their penultimate year at school to apply, were asked to submit an essay that addressed questions on either voting or freedom of speech.

CMS lawyers — who marked over 120 application essays — selected 20 finalists who were invited to assessment centres in London and Edinburgh.

Five bursaries were awarded in total, which will see five lucky aspiring lawyers receive a total of £10,000 if they study over four years. All 20 finalists will also receive expert guidance from a CMS lawyer, who will assist with their applications to university.

This year’s winners were Mia Bristow from Bristol, Abigail Clarke from Kent, Chyna Fairclough from Hampshire, Matthew McShane from Glasgow and Ece Osman from London. CMS did not disclose which universities the students will be attending.

As part of the bursary package, the five winners will also have an opportunity to undertake paid for work experience at the firm that trumpets itself as the “law and tax experts”.

Winner Mia Bristow, thankful for the financial assistance CMS will provide, said:

The bursary is an incredibly positive aid for me; I am now in no doubt that I will attend university, as the cost of higher education is no longer such a worry, and I feel as if I am being supported on my journey into university.

The scheme is open to students who are the first generation in their family to go to university. Applicants must have attended a school where either they or 25% of their fellow pupils were eligible for school meals. Furthermore applicants are expected to be on to achieve ABB or equivalent at A-level, or AABB or ABBBB at Higher, or 320 points in five Scottish Highers.

Sarah Hyde, the solicitor at CMS who leads the bursary team, commented:

This has been our most competitive year so far, with over 120 essays submitted, and an incredibly high standard achieved — choosing who would be awarded the bursaries has never been harder. I’m proud to be part of a programme that enables and supports extremely gifted and determined students, who may not have had the opportunity otherwise, to reach that crucial next step in their pursuit of a career in law.

According to CMS, 11 students — not including this year’s winners — have received bursaries since the scheme launched, while a total of 22 have received mentoring from the firm’s lawyers. Registration for the 2016 competition will open in the spring.

Other firms to offer funding for undergraduates include Hogan Lovells, which this year launched a diversity scheme to sponsor students at LSE, York and Durham to the tune of £18,000, and Mayer Brown, whose graduate apprenticeship commenced in September.

Previously:

Global firm CMS kicks off fourth year of state school student law degree bursary [Legal Cheek]

The post Students handed £2.5k for each year of their law degree by City firm in socio-economic diversity push appeared first on Legal Cheek.

“Mmmmmmmmmmmmm”

There is bafflement among lawyers after the Legal Aid Agency’s official Twitter account did this weird tweet yesterday in response to an enquiry about the government’s tender for new criminal legal aid contracts.

The tweet, which has since been deleted, attracted ridicule from solicitors and barristers on Twitter, and has even reached the pages of the Law Society’s Gazette magazine.

A spokesperson for the Legal Aid Agency, which is an executive agency of the Ministry of Justice, told the Law Society:

This tweet was clearly unintended and we are looking into what has happened.

The solicitor who received the tweet, Andrew Gurney of law firm Gurney Harden, has issued this comment:

I thought not only do the LAA treat solicitors with contempt by delaying the contract outcome notification date when people’s livelihood is at stake but when they do respond it is nothing but nonsense. But at least the LAA are nothing if not consistent.

Whatever the cause, the tweet caps a bad few days for @LegalAidAgency, which has also been on the end of criticism recently for its use of the Twitter “favourite” function.

Stop favouriting my tweets and start training your caseworkers to do their jobs properly! @LegalAidAgency pic.twitter.com/AWCmEZxzW4

— DefenceGirl (@DefenceGirl) October 2, 2015

The post The Legal Aid Agency did a really weird tweet — and no one seems to know why appeared first on Legal Cheek.

Firm which has grown rapidly through mergers retains fewer trainees than in 2011

Megafirm Clyde & Co has revealed a sharp drop in its trainee retention figure — which is 22 percentage points down on this time last year.

The firm, which has grown rapidly since the financial crisis via a series of mergers, revealed that just 35 out of a trainee cohort of 46 — 76% — will remain upon qualification.

That means 11 newly-qualified solicitors, which the firm has gone to huge expense to support through law school and then train, are heading for the exit door.

The shipping and insurance-geared practice, where newly qualified pay is £61,000, will no doubt be disappointed with this situation, having posted an outstanding 98% last year, when all but one trainee stayed on. Prior to that Clydes’ retention rates in the autumns of 2013 and 2012 were each time over 90%.

Twenty-eight of the new qualifiers this year will be placed at Clydes’ London HQ, two in its Manchester office, two in Dubai and the remaining three will begin life as associates in Hong Kong.

In other retention rate news, Bond Dickinson has revealed that 18 of its 23 autumn new qualifiers will remain at the firm, resulting in a retention figure of 78% — placing the regional firm above Clyde & Co in the retention pecking order.

The national firm — which is a combination of Bond Pearce and Dickinson Dees following their 2013 merger — revealed that five NQs had opted to leave the firm on completion of their training contracts.

The commercial all-rounder announced that its Newcastle office would take six new lawyers, while the Bristol and Southampton offices would gain four lawyers each. The firm’s Leeds hub would receive two young lawyers and one NQ would be based in the outfit’s Scotland office in Aberdeen.

Bond Dickinson’s company and commercial practice will receive the lion’s share of the young legal talent with 12 NQs. Three will be heading to the firm’s dispute resolution team, two to private wealth and one to real estate.

The 78% figure marks a drop from last year when the firm retained 86% of its NQ lawyers, with 18 out of 21 opting to remain.

Retention rates at firms which have undergone recent mergers are often used as a gauge of the tie-ups’ success. In general, relatively steady figures year-on-year are a sign that the new combined firm is settling into its new identity, while wild fluctuations can suggest that there is still work to be done.

A spokesperson from Clyde & Co told Legal Cheek:

Clyde & Co is committed to attracting, developing and retaining world class people at every level of its business. Our trainee retention rate inevitably fluctuates from year to year but our average over the last few rounds is 90%.

The post Clyde & Co’s trainee retention rate plunges from 98% to 76% appeared first on Legal Cheek.

Tough times for one of world’s richest general counsel

Anyone who got a job with Twitter before its 2013 initial public offering (IPO) is basically a lottery winner.

So it goes without saying that the social media site’s top lawyer, who was promoted to general counsel three months before the IPO, has done rather well for herself.

Upon her arrival at Twitter in 2011 as legal director, New York University law school graduate Vijaya Gadde received shares in the company as well as salary — with her holding in September 2014 recorded as 829,229 shares. These shares were, at that time, worth $42m (£25.8m), based on a trading price of $50.88 (£31.10) per share.

Today, with Twitter’s share price having gone into to freefall to stand at $29.84 (£19.50), those 829,229 shares are worth barely $25m (£16m).

Happily, San Francisco-based Gadde — who practised for ten years at US corporate firm Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati before joining Twitter via a brief stint at another tech company — is, as you would expect from a lawyer of her calibre, very commercially aware.

So as Twitter has hit its rocky spell, she has offloaded nearly 20% of her shares (149,493 plus 1,641 options, to be precise) since last September — leaving her current holding at 678,095 shares. They are currently worth $20m (£13m).

Despite the losses, judging by Gadde’s Vine feed (which can be sampled below) her existence among the California tech elite remains pretty blissful.

But it could have been even more blissful if she had joined Facebook: share price $92.40 (£60.50) — up from $59.83 last year. According to WhoOwnsFacebook, former general counsel Ted Ullyot holds 1.86 million shares in the company. That works out at nearly $172 million (£113 million)!

The post Twitter’s top lawyer sees £10 million wiped off value of her shares appeared first on Legal Cheek.

Engaging students in society is key, says project manager of Citizenship Foundation’s Lawyers in Schools programme

The Citizenship Foundation’s acclaimed Lawyers in Schools project is looking to expand to battle rising crime figures in schools.

The BBC revealed last week that school crime reports topped 30,000 in 2014, up from 28,444 crime reports in 2013. Alarmingly, the alleged offences were often quite serious, with theft, burglary or robbery the most common, with 13,003 incidents reported. Meanwhile, there were 9,319 reports of violent crime, 4,106 reports of criminal damage or arson and 754 reported drugs offences.

The problem is obviously a complex one with many causes, but Lawyers in Schools project manager Dorothy Spencer reckons that it is partly due to some students’ disengagement with society.

And she thinks that solicitors and barristers can help out by coming into tough schools to deliver classes that explain basic legal concepts that allow students to get a sense of how the world works and where they stand within it.

Spencer comments:

No one thing will fix the increasing problem of crime in schools. But educating students on the law, society and citizenship is an important step towards helping them to re-engage.

Spencer adds that students who attend the six session programmes run by Lawyers in Schools in partnership with 40 law firms and businesses frequently get a confidence boost from spending time with top solicitors and barristers that translates into better performance in other classes. She explains:

Skills like advocacy and understanding of the rule of law can be of huge benefit to the wider community.

You can find out more about Lawyers in Schools here, or by contacting Dorothy Spencer on 02075667757 or Dorothy.Spencer@citizenshipfoundation.org.uk.

Alternatively you could come along to this breakfast event which The Citizenship Foundation is holding on 5 November. It will see Lawyers in Schools partners BBC Worldwide, Centrica, JP Morgan and Olswang discuss the benefits and challenges of their involvement in the project. Find out more and sign up here.

The post Lawyers wanted to stem rise of crime in schools appeared first on Legal Cheek.

Could lengthy legal document be route to love?

An unnamed California lawyer has attempted to secure a date with a woman by serving her with a subpoena.

The American legal document — which usually compels someone to attend court as a witness — has been re-drafted by the loved-up-lawyer in the hope of bagging a romantic meal with an unnamed lady.

A copy (pictured below) that has appeared on image sharing site Imgur has received a modest 1,339 views so far. However Legal Cheek expects that number to rocket as the legalese-filled love letter circulates Twitter and Facebook.

The subpoena in full:

The attempt to wangle a date through a summons isn’t, however, unprecedented. Last year Legal Cheek reported that a Queen Mary University of London law student had created a ‘Writ of Summons’ to ask coursemate to a society ball.

The post Lawyer attempts to secure date by serving woman with subpoena appeared first on Legal Cheek.

Mr Justice Flaux’s ruling is a must-read for fans of celeb gossip

An explosive judgment involving former 90s heartthrob Peter Andre has lifted the lid on just how unpleasant the life of C-list celebrities can be.

The lengthy ruling — that has just appeared on legal database Bailii — describes in detail the murky world of reality TV and its stars.

The case came about because of a dispute between a production company and ITV. Mr Justice Flaux, sitting in the High Court, had to determine whether Mr H TV productions was entitled to damages after its contract was terminated by the TV channel. Mr H TV boss Neville Hendricks claimed damages consisting of lost profits estimated at £6m-£7m and £549,060 under an outstanding invoice.

Hendricks’ company produced singer-turned-reality TV star Andre’s ‘The Next Chapter’ series and ‘Here To Help’, along with reality projects for singer Kerry Katona. Hendricks worked closely with both singers’ manager, Claire Powell, who he previously had a relationship with, sharing a son. Amid false rumours of an affair between Katona and Hendricks, relationships between all parties began to break down.

The fiery judgment charts some desperate behaviour. For example, at one point in the bust-up Hendricks set up a Twitter account that began to tweet “pretty unpleasant” comments about Andre and Powell’s private lives.

As a result of this, Andre’s representatives wrote to Hendricks’ lawyers stating that he wanted nothing more to do with him or his production company. With ITV’s legal team getting wind of the letter, Justice Flaux believed it was this that acted as the catalyst for Hendricks being given the axe.

The judgment graphically describes how Hendricks reacted to the news of his contract termination, blaming his ex-partner Powell and Andre for putting pressure on ITV. The High Court judgment quotes evidence given by Hendricks’ builder which Legal Cheek would have been interested to hear read out in open court. Paragraph 119 states:

‘The fucking bitch has taken Pete up to ITV behind my back’ and that he wanted to be ‘standing over Claire Powell with my foot on her back and a flag of triumph stuck up her cunt and pull it out of her mouth.

Elsewhere in the judgment, Justice Flaux pulls no punches when he describes Andre — famed for his 90s hit ‘Mysterious Girl’ and recent Strictly Come Dancing role — as an “extremely unsatisfactory witness.”

Justice Flaux continues his devastating critique, thundering:

I suspect that Mr Andre was driven to some of the extremes he exhibited in his evidence out of loyalty to Ms Powell, but that did not make his evidence any more impressive or credible.

Partly as a result of Andre’s poor performance in court — alongside a number of other contributing factors — Justice Flaux ruled that it was ITV who was in breach of contract and not Hendricks.

Speaking to the Mail Online today, Andre said:

I am extremely disappointed that Mr Justice Flaux didn’t accept some of my evidence but all I can say is that I was telling the truth and would never have misled the court in this important matter.

The post Full transcript: Incredible Peter Andre High Court judgment lifts lid on mad world of reality TV appeared first on Legal Cheek.

Top lawyers use The Times to lambast government over “deeply inadequate” Syrian refugee policy

More than 340 former judges and lawyers have purchased a full-page advertisement in a national newspaper to blast the UK government over its poor response to the current Syrian refugee crisis.

The advertisement (pictured below) takes over the entire page 37 of today’s copy of The Times. This won’t have come cheap: according to information online, a full-page black and white ad in the Rupert Murdoch-owned broadsheet costs £16,645.

Yet divide that sum between the total 341 signatories and it comes out at a reasonable £48.80 to publicly brand the government’s response to the current refugee crisis as “deeply inadequate”.

The signatories include 12 retired judges, 102 Queen’s Counsel, 29 law firm partners and directors, and 24 notable legal academics.

Former president of the Supreme Court Lord Philips, former law lord Lord Steyn and former president of the European Court of Human Rights Sir Nicholas Bratza have all lent their backing to the ad.

Last month, 11KBW‘s Sean Jones QC set up a fundraising campaign that saw lawyers donate one billable hour to refugees. The appeal — which has raised a whopping £200,573 — has seen more than 1,500 members of the legal profession, and many from outside it, donate to assist those fleeing Syria and other countries.

A full list of the The Times ad lawyer signatories can be found here.

The post Over 340 lawyers and former judges blast UK refugee policy in full-page newspaper ad appeared first on Legal Cheek.

Herbert Smith Freehills’ Veronica Roberts — who’ll be speaking on Thursday at ‘Why the legal profession needs people who see the world differently: Legal Cheek live, with Lord Neuberger’ — on her journey from the local comprehensive to global law firm partner

I think it’s crucial that we operate diverse teams comprised of lawyers with different backgrounds and outlooks: it helps us to ensure that we always provide pragmatic solutions for the range of issues our clients come up against.

I remember vividly my first day at Herbert Smith Freehills. Nervous about starting my training contract with such a large firm but also, as a newbie to London, trying to get my head around all the more practical changes like my new flat share in north London (found through an ad in Loot, quickly changed to sharing a flat with a fellow trainee!), travelling by Tube and so on. Would I be any good as a trainee? I had done a bit of legal work experience, but had usually had to fill my holidays with part-time jobs, like waitressing and on the production line in a greetings card company.

I had been to my local state comprehensive and sixth form, and I was worried that I didn’t seem to have anything like the confidence that some of my fellow trainees showed in our first few days of induction. And for the first time I now wondered if I really should have applied to study at Oxford or Cambridge (I hadn’t wanted to at the time, because they didn’t do the four year European law degree that I had just enjoyed at Warwick and Lille Universities).

I really need not have worried. At the end of the day, so much is down to the people you work with and for: I realised that very quickly and continue to remember that now as I lead different teams, including trainees. Within weeks of starting Margaret Mountford (of TV’s The Apprentice fame), then a corporate partner with Herbert Smith Freehills, was congratulating me on receiving my first “thank you” letter from a client and suggesting that I frame it as the first of many more to come.

Very quickly the people around me boosted my confidence and made me realise that actually I could do it and my contribution was valued. My partner supervisor in my second seat took me on a business trip to India to interview a huge number of potential witnesses in a fraud case and I learnt that as well as developing my skills as a lawyer and forging links internally it was also important to build strong client relationships. The people I interact with on a daily basis (both within and outside the firm) have very different job roles and backgrounds.

My part-time student jobs had really helped me to get on naturally with people from all walks of life and I only realised when I got to the firm that those skills would help me hugely with my role here. I loved it. By the time I went to our Brussels office in my third seat I was getting much more confident and thrived on more responsibility being passed my way, always carefully supported by various supervisors.

I qualified into our competition group and was based in our Brussels office for around eight years, before moving back to London. The way I learnt was by watching and doing — being involved in some key mergers and competition investigations with senior partners involving me fully and always asking for my opinion and input. This all helped me realise that my contribution was helpful and valued.

I also got involved in other “extra-curricular” activities to help me with my confidence. The firm’s graduate recruitment partner took me, as a newly qualified associate, back to Warwick University to give a talk on competition law in practice. Interesting insights, I thought as I listened to him talking about all the cases he had been involved in over the years. “Right, you’re doing that next time” he said to me as we were packing up. I couldn’t believe it, in fact the thought absolutely petrified me.

Who would be interested in me talking about my competition experience, with only just over a year of post-qualification experience under my belt? But I did give the talk (after lots of practising!) and the students loved it. In fact, I have been back to Warwick University most years since to give guest lectures and I have always encouraged associates to do so as well.

Male mentors have played a key part in the development of my career. Sometimes they may not even have realised that they were mentoring me, but wise words of encouragement at the right time helped me on my journey to where I am today. I remember being surprised when a senior partner told me I had what it takes to become a partner. ‎ All the partners I knew seemed so self-assured and confident and I just couldn’t see myself in their shoes. But it helped when my male mentors were honest enough to tell me about their own insecurities and worries, and I realised that not everyone (in fact, hardly anyone) is infallible. I have been with Herbert Smith Freehills for nearly 21 years and a partner in our competition practice for nearly 12 years. I am also now the lead graduate recruitment partner in our London office.

If I am totally honest, I wasn’t sure I was going to manage having children as well as my very busy job. But thanks to the support of my family and others around me, it has been a real joy. I can’t say it has been plain sailing all the way, but those more difficult moments have always helped to give me more resilience as well as more confidence to try and do things my way. As my three daughters are now growing up, although I know sometimes that they (and I) would prefer me to be at home at particular times, they are really proud of what I do when I hear them talking about my job with their friends. It also helps me to have a healthy perspective on the challenges I end up dealing with at work: there is (virtually) always a solution to any client issue.

My own experience has shown me that you get so much more out of people when they are engaged, given responsibility as well as understanding the overall context of a deal or investigation and feel entirely comfortable in the team dynamic. It also makes it so much more enjoyable, for them and me, and I think clients end up getting a better service and both notice and appreciate that.

My key focus always is to act as a positive role model, for male and female colleagues alike. For me, that means acting with honesty and integrity at all times: if colleagues and/or clients stop respecting you, things will start to unravel. As a partner, not all the decisions I and/or my fellow partners make will be popular within the firm, but I still think that communicating with people honestly and openly makes a big difference. And working with diverse and varied teams, with each member feeling comfortable with and enjoying their own role, can only lead to better client service.

Veronica Roberts is a partner in Herbert Smith Freehills’ competition law team. She will be speaking this week at ‘Why the legal profession needs people who see the world differently — Legal Cheek live, with Lord Neuberger’. Apply for a free ticket to attend here.

About Legal Cheek Careers posts.

The post How waitressing helped me succeed as an international competition lawyer appeared first on Legal Cheek.

Horsehair extensions and evening wear-style gowns yet to materialise

A cartoon dating back the 1920s has surfaced on Twitter that ridicules the idea of female barristers, suggesting that they would modify their wigs and gowns to keep up with the latest fashion trends.

The series of drawings (pictured below) — which were tweeted today by TV-producer Angela Holdsworth, whose other half is Supreme Court president Lord Neuberger — predicts “extensions” being made to wigs while also depicting a female member of the judiciary swamping male barristers with her lengthy horsehair headpiece.

Not content with suggesting a number of other “distortions” that female barristers may apply to their wigs, the cartoon even forecasts that women would adapt their robes to achieve a more dress-like look.

The cartoon, which Holdsworth reports is from 1921, roughly coincides with the first woman to qualify as a barrister. Ivy Williams — a member of Inner Temple — was called in 1922. The move marked the end of a lengthy campaign for women to be recognised by the legal profession.

Female barristers and solicitors entered the legal profession for the first time following the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act 1919 — a report about which was tweeted today by the Law Society Library’s Twitter account.

In 1920 the Law Society publicised admission of women to the roll by way of a brief notice in the Gazette #womeninlaw pic.twitter.com/8RYj4I2WCQ

— Law Society Library (@LSlawlibrary) October 12, 2015

The first woman to be admitted to the solicitors’ roll was Cambridge graduate Carrie Morrison.

The images appeared following the launch of #First100Years, a history project supported by the Law Society and the Bar Council that charts the journey of women in law since 1919.

The post 1920s cartoon predicts that first women barristers would hilariously modify their wigs appeared first on Legal Cheek.

Top judge wades into gender diversity row

Sir Brian Leveson has put his stake in the legal profession sexism debate, dismissing workplace quotas as the “antithesis of appointment on merit”.

Speaking at a recent lecture, the president of the Queen’s Bench Division described the imposition of compulsory targets to boost diversity — an idea backed by sexism row junior barrister Charlotte Proudman — as “demeaning whether to women or those from minority ethnic groups”. He added:

Making allowance for career breaks or for the consequences of caring responsibilities is one thing [but creating a] principle of appointment [to boost diversity] will inevitably lead to the inference that those appointments are most decidedly not based on merit alone.

Leveson made these comments at the ‘Justice for the 21st century’ in the Isle of Man. His lengthy speech explored a number of constitutional developments in the British legal system — the most topical being the appointment of female judges.

Perhaps illustrating a generational divide in attitudes to quotas, high profile rookie human rights barrister Charlotte Proudman has publicly pushed for the introduction of workplace quotas, describing them as the “only” way to challenge male privilege.

And it seems the 27 year-old has the support of young women. Research conducted in 2012 by the Law Society’s Women Lawyers Division shows that younger delegates favoured quotas as a means of introducing more females into positions of power. The same research demonstrated that “more established” women rejected the idea of quotas.

But there is some support for quotas among more senior legal professionals, with LSE law academic Nicola Lacey today backing quotas “in the context of failure of existing policies effectively to tackle the over-representation of men in the upper echelons of the legal profession”. Speaking to the Law Society Gazette, she said it was time for extreme action to boost gender equality in the legal profession, explaining:

We believe that anyone seriously committed to the gender injustice and equality must be prepared to consider a more radical approach.

Read Lord Justice Leveson’s speech in full below:

JUSTICE FOR THE 21ST CENTURY CAROLINE WEATHERILL LECTURE

The post The Charlotte Proudman generation backs quotas, but Lord Justice Leveson says they are ‘demeaning’ appeared first on Legal Cheek.

Sheffield IP solicitors bid farewell to office with three storey high spiral slide

Lawyers at the Sheffield outpost of intellectual property outfit Withers & Rogers have waved goodbye to their end-of-the-day 85ft Helter Skelter rides.

The firm, which was based in Sheffield’s hip Electric Works office space, has been forced to find larger, more sensible offices due to its recent growth.

The solicitors will no doubt be disappointed that they cannot transport themselves from the third floor to the reception in just seven seconds — as they settle for the stairs in the future.

The slide (pictured above) was installed in 2009 and is the first of its kind to be to be built inside a UK office building. It is the brainchild of German designers Wiegandslide.

However, the office based fun-fair attraction is not without controversy. It was reported back in 2009 that the slide — that was funded entirely using the public purse — cost £91,500 to install.

Withers & Rogers, which also has offices in London, has moved its Sheffield base to a slightly more conservative building in the city centre.

Rumours that Slaughter and May are looking at installing waltzers for its associates remain unconfirmed.

The post No more 85ft Helter Skelter rides: Law firm with coolest office in Britain moves on appeared first on Legal Cheek.

Move comes after Legal Aid Agency referred Blavo & Co to the police

A national law firm that is notorious for its huge fake social media following has been shut down by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) amid suspicions of “dishonesty”.

The worried professional regulator has this morning taken the extreme measure to close with immediate effect Blavo & Co after the Legal Aid Agency “identified significant concerns” about claims from the firm and referred it to the police.

In a statement the SRA said that it “will stop the firm from operating, take possession of all documents and papers held by the firm (including clients’ papers), and take possession of all money held by the firm (including clients’ money).”

Worryingly for Blavo & Co’s lawyers, who were all put on a redundancy consultation last week, the regulator added:

The SRA is not responsible towards employees or trade creditors of firms that we have intervened in.

Despite its bizarre social media situation — as Legal Cheek reported in 2012, the 40,000 followers of Blavo’s now deleted @LegalBlavo Twitter account are almost all fake bots — the firm is one of the UK’s largest legal aid providers, with particular strength in mental health work. But not only is Blavo now absent on social media, its own website has now even disappeared.

Blavo employs more than 240 staff across 18 offices in cities including London, Birmingham, Cardiff, Liverpool, Manchester and Newcastle.

Last week the firm attributed the move to reduce staff numbers to government cuts to legal aid, with its senior partner, John Blavo, stating that the “knock-on effects of legal aid cutbacks have severely impacted upon the number of cases we are allowed to be paid for”.

The SRA confirmed this morning that as part of its dramatic intervention the practising certificate of Blavo — who readers of The Independent will know for his “The Football Lawyer” column — has been automatically suspended so that he cannot practise as a solicitor.

It added that “there is reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of John Blavo in connection with his practice”, with the closure taking place to “protect the interests of clients of Blavo & Co Solicitors Limited”.

Solicitors have the right to challenge intervention into their firm.

In a statement issued this morning, Blavo said:

The firm has been advised, by the SRA, that it wishes to intervene. We have not been provided with an opportunity to make representations. We are currently taking legal advice and do not wish to make any further comments at this stage.

The post A major law firm has been dramatically shut down by the Solicitors Regulation Authority appeared first on Legal Cheek.

US aunt v nephew birthday hug case would require a litigant-in-person on these shores … or an English Saul Goodman

A top personal injury law firm has rejected the idea that a family member could sue one of her own for injuries caused by a “poorly timed hug” on English soil — although concedes that such a claim would be technically possible.
 
Yesterday, the world gaped in amazement at news that a New York woman had sued her nephew, 12, for $127,000 (£83,000) for an accident that saw her break her wrist.
 
Jennifer Connell, 54, took legal action against her 12-year-old nephew, Sean Tarala, for negligence over an incident that occurred four years previously. The then eight year-old reportedly jumped on his unsuspecting aunt at his own birthday party. This caused Connell, who works in HR, to fall back and break her wrist.
 
Despite the young boy weighing just under four stone at the time, Connell reports that the incident has caused her long-term mobility problems — her injury has made it difficult for her to manoeuvre around crowded Manhattan and to hold her hors d’oeuvre plate at parties.
 
Connell’s claim was thrown out of court in just 25 minutes. But the fact that she was able to bring it as far as the courtroom leads us to question whether equally outrageous claimants exist in the UK. Alex Kenny, of north west personal injury giant Fletchers, does not think so. Describing the case as “like something Saul Goodman might take on”, he comments:
 

You often read about unbelievable personal injury claims like burglars suing the homeowner for injury or injury claims following a particularly violent game of conkers, but usually these are a blend of myth, public hysteria or simply odd cases that got through the cracks.

On whether a claim like this could be brought before UK judges, he adds:
 

I am not sure this client would find any lawyer to represent them in the UK.

But Kenny does note that UK litigants acting in person are free to bring bizarre claims to court:
 

In this country, you don’t always need a lawyer to bring a claim, so anyone in theory could issue a claim at court as a litigant in person. That said, you have to then look at whether any of these claims actually succeed.

Connell was represented by US attorney William Beckert, who is reported to make up one half of Connecticut-based law firm Jainchill & Beckert. The personal injury specialist prides himself on offering “guidance” and “assistance” to those “presented with an unexpected event in their life”.
 
Perhaps Beckert will be less willing to offer assistance to such over-zealous claimants in the future when he experiences the fall out from the case — or perhaps it’s all good publicity. His involvement in Connell’s claim has been criticised in the American blogosphere, with Courtroom Strategy commenting:
 

Lawyers, myself included, get solicited by clients all the time who want to bring baseless, ridiculous lawsuits like this. I usually tell them ‘You don’t have a case. It’s called ‘Life’.’ The vast majority of lawyers would have told Ms. Connell the same thing and that this lawsuit wasn’t just a bad idea — it was a nonsensical and immoral idea. But not Bill.

Since the story hit the worldwide headlines, Jainchill & Beckert have released this statement:
 

From the start, this was a case was about one thing: getting medical bills paid by homeowner’s insurance. Our client was never looking for money from her nephew or his family. It was about the insurance industry and being forced to sue to get medical bills paid. She suffered a horrific injury. She had two surgeries and is potentially facing a third. Prior to the trial, the insurance company offered her one dollar. Unfortunately, due to Connecticut law, the homeowner’s insurance company could not be identified as the defendant.

Judging by the intense backlash against Connell — who is being dubbed the ‘Auntie Christ’ — don’t expect any disgruntled English litigants in person to follow suit.

The post Suing your 12 year-old nephew theoretically possible in England — but no lawyer would take case on appeared first on Legal Cheek.

But the firm has made contact with the guru attempting to revolutionise working patterns at rivals

The London office of global law firm Hogan Lovells has confirmed that it will not follow Ashurst and Clifford Chance in allocating associates work on a “blind” basis.

However, the firm admits that it is keen to explore ways to improve the efficient distribution of work, and has revealed that it has held informal discussions with blind work allocation guru Dave Cook.

Cook has been overseeing a pilot at silver circle outfit Ashurst over the past three months. The project has seen work assigned to associates according to previous tasks they have completed rather than because they are requested for jobs by individual partners.

Speaking to Legal Cheek, Hogan Lovells’ London real estate chief Michael Gallimore explained his firm was taking a more cautious approach. He commented:

We are working with an independent consultant, our people and our clients to look at different ways of allocating work for certain projects. This might be by using a project manager, for example, who can recommend the right solution for each matter to partners — based on client needs, our capacity, lawyer skill set and our people’s career development requirements. The project will enhance the many things we are already doing around developing our talent and providing the most efficient and innovative solutions to our clients.

Keen to distance Hogan Lovells from the more controversial parts of the Ashurst scheme, Gallimore said that partners would still have the final say on who got what work. He continued:

The decision regarding work allocation will not be removed from partners — the consultant presents partners with various options based on capacity, skill set, career development needs, and the partner then ultimately decides what is most appropriate. This will ultimately lead to more efficiency, fairer allocation of work and free up partner time.

Cook has previously advised accountancy giants PwC and government departments including the Home Office. He was also responsible for a similar work allocation trial at magic circle firm Clifford Chance back in 2012.

Commenting on a story that appeared on The Lawyer (registration required) earlier this month, the management expert said:

Having an impartial and objective individual allocating work, allows for individuals to discuss opportunities more freely and for there to be more visibility of wider opportunities which could enhance their career.

Continuing to trumpet the benefits of his blind allocation system, Cook goes on to suggest that it will eradicate “benevolent bias” that generally impacts females more than males. He claims:

This approach pretty much eradicates that issue, focusing on capability, capacity and development requirements to identify individuals that are interested in the type of work and giving them the choice of whether they take it on.

The post Hogan Lovells denies joining movement to allocate work blindly to junior lawyers appeared first on Legal Cheek.

“Your differences can become your strength,” says Hogan Lovells partner Tom Astle — who’ll be speaking this evening at ‘Why the legal profession needs people who see the world differently’

I was fortunate with my career planning. I did a vacation scheme at Hogan Lovells. It went well: I’m still here (albeit with a different job spec these days).

Would I have done it differently if I had my time again?

I would still set out to achieve the same conclusion; I’m proud of where I am. There is a lot that I didn’t understand however and, sitting on the other side of the interview room these days, I realise I had a fair bit of luck the first time around.

Work experience is something that I would urge students to be proactive about. Immediately it demonstrates a level of initiative and effort in pursuing your interest in law. It will also help you understand whether you are interested in a given branch of the career, and to articulate your reasoning when applying for jobs.

Any experience is good — criminal or civil; barrister or solicitor; one partner practice or international firm; in-house; regional or London; open day; vacation scheme; or work shadowing.

They are all different, and you will learn from each (even if the thing that you learn is that it’s not for you!). Do it right, and you will know exactly what you want, and why. You will also be able to show how you engaged with the legal work you encountered, and that you understood it.

I did a number of vacation schemes, a couple of open days, shadowing in a small regional practice doing family law, and some temporary work. I thought it was about building a list on the CV, but I learned it was about being able to explain my experiences and what I had learned.

Commercial awareness is crucial. If you are after commercial law, start building this. Pay attention to the business segments of newspapers, online media and other news. It does not matter whether the story is a piece of litigation, takeover, employee dispute, financing, or property development. Listen, and then think.

The thinking is the key. Why is the story unfolding as it is? Why did that company do this? Why didn’t they do that? What issues do they now have? What will they do next? For bonus points go a step further: think about what the lawyers might be focussing on.

You should find that these sorts of questions and views start to pop themselves into your head unbidden and, lo and behold, the story starts to get more interesting. If you keep trying, but are struggling to find any interesting angles, then query if that area is really what you are after.

I lived in fear of spot questions being fired at me about this merger or that dispute from the recent press, and being unaware of it, so I was keen to build up a log of current business stories. That question never came, but I did find a growing and genuine interest in some of the underlying stories (at that time, it was finance and shipping), and that would start to become evident as I discussed the content of the stories with people. Looking back, it was this that ultimately decided which firms I applied to and probably the reason that some of them offered me a job.

Communication and confidence is another area I would emphasise. A huge part of this profession is the ability to convey your points to an audience in a clear and precise manner. If you are not clear and confident in your communication, then people will either not understand you, or will not believe you. The higher value and more complex the issue, the more this rings true. Everybody has nerves, and as they creep in they will hinder your ability to communicate effectively. Learn to master them.

For some this comes naturally, and for some too naturally (arrogance is flat out dangerous). For most however it requires practice, and for all it will improve with practice. Nerves tend to come the first time you do things, so the more time you spend in and around the relevant environments, the more comfortable you become.

The work experience will help a lot (looking back, it was key for me). Networking events with your target law firm or chambers will help too. You will start to de-mystify these professionals, and realise they are just human (mostly). Join mooting and debating societies, and do mock interviews, if you get the opportunity.

Remember that the objective is to be you — do not start forcing yourself to be somebody you are not, to say things you don’t believe, or come out with definitive statements and answers when actually you are not sure.

Related to this is not feeling that you have to come across as from a certain socio-economic background. Those from some backgrounds may have enjoyed more interaction with professional advisers (they may have some in the family) leaving less to de-mystify and fewer nerves. They may have enjoyed education in schools with potentially higher chances of academic and other success, and in turn more self-belief. Application and interview training might have been available.

So is this where a “poshness test” comes in? No. The best recruitment processes will see your achievements in context; they will recognise the scope for unconscious bias and address its influence; and they will filter out the difference between superficial polish and true quality. We can do the polish when we train people if they have the underlying quality. No amount of polish can help however if that quality is missing.

I was state educated in Leicestershire, and went to Sheffield University (my parents did not go to university at all). I am not from a working class background by any means — I am lucky to have had a very comfortable upbringing — but I reject the suggestion that there is a fixation with the way you look or sound, that you were privately educated, or frankly are posh. I do not see it any such barrier when I applied, and I see no barrier now. Build the experience, and the interest, and from that you will find the confidence. You will then realise that your background mattered not one jot.

Candidates with the skills that are key to being a good lawyer will shine through, irrespective of background. Your differences can become your strength.

Tom Astle is a finance and graduate recruitment partner at Hogan Lovells. He will be speaking this evening at ‘Why the legal profession needs people who see the world differently — Legal Cheek live, with Lord Neuberger’.

About Legal Cheek Careers posts.

The post Why wannabe lawyers shouldn’t feel they have to come across as from a certain socio-economic background appeared first on Legal Cheek.