Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
Legal firms’ call handling standards have come into question as the result of a major new study into telephone practice.
The research conducted by audio branding specialist PHMG, which audited 766 firms in the legal trade, discovered the large majority risk losing custom by subjecting customers to generic music and audio while on hold.
Typically, waiting on hold is seen as a major bugbear but 51% of legal firms still leave customers listening to nothing but generic music. A further 25% subject callers to beeps, while 18% leave them in silence and 4% force them to listen to ringing.
Only one per cent employ brand-consistent voice and music messaging - viewed as the best practice approach to handling calls – which is less than the national average of 2%.
Mark Williamson, Sales and Marketing Director at PHMG, said: “Call handling remains a critically undervalued element of customer service and marketing. A previous study of 1,000 UK consumers found 73% will not do business with a company again if their first call isn’t handled satisfactorily.
“Therefore, it is important companies do their utmost to improve the experience. The research shows there is still work to be done in providing an experience that keeps callers engaged and entertained.
“Generic music, beeps, ringing or silence convey a message that the customer is not valued, which will only serve to compound any annoyance felt as a result of being made to wait on hold.”
The research also found 96% of legal firms do not even use auto attendant messaging to greet customers who call up outside of normal working hours.
It also seems call handling standards have not significantly improved when comparing the results to a similar study conducted in 2013. The number of companies playing repetitive music has increased by 24% during that period and there has been a 2% improvement in the number using brand-consistent voice and music.
“The trends over the past three years suggest legal firms believe generic music is enough to keep callers entertained but this can actually have the opposite effect,” added Williamson.
“An existing, generic piece of music should not be repurposed to convey a message it was never intended to, as its characteristics may not match those of the company.
Hearing is one of our most powerful emotional senses so the sounds customers hear when they call a business will create a long-lasting impression. Every element of a music track, whether tempo, pitch or instrumentation, will stir different emotions so traders should ensure they convey the appropriate brand image.”
(Source: PHMG)
Solicitor Peter Watson-Lee, the Head of the Specialist Family Law Department at Williams Thompson Solicitors LLP in Christchurch, Dorset, has co-authored two influential legal guides. The national guides, which are the first official guides of their kind, have addressed the inconsistencies and a lack of knowledge surrounding the division of finances following divorce.
As the former Chair of the Law Society's National Family Law Committee, Peter was chosen to join a small group of legal experts whose aim was to address the concerns about financial division following divorce highlighted by the Law Commission. With his wide experience working at one of the region's leading family law practices, Williams Thompson Solicitors LLP, Peter helped develop the two innovative guides for the UK's Family Justice Council.
Peter Watson-Lee said: "These are the first ever official guides. The problem is that there are no clear rules as to how finances are to be divided when divorce takes place and individual Judges have a wide discretion. This has resulted in unacceptable regional disparities. In addition, the withdrawal of legal aid has meant that more and more people have to try to sort things out for themselves. This is why these guides are seen as so important"
Published by the Ministry of Justice, the first guide, titled ‘Sorting out Finances on Divorce,' is aimed at the general public and is intended to provide a fair and comprehensive reference in readable style. The second guide is aimed at the Judiciary and is titled "Guidance on ‘Financial Needs' on Divorce." It reviews the current law and how the parties' needs should be considered as well as looking at difficult issues, such as how long spousal maintenance should last. Gathering national attention, the first guide has already been used by Advice Now as the basis of their ‘Survival guide to sorting out your finances when you get divorced.'
Peter Watson-Lee said: "Lack of knowledge and misunderstandings as to the approach to be taken is one of the reasons why divorce can become so contentious. The anticipation is that these new guides will become a standard reference for both the public and the Judges and this will help narrow the disputes between divorcing couples".
(Source: Williams Thompson Solicitors)
A strict new copyright law will ensure extra protection for artists and designers from those attempting to rip off their designs, says Tayside solicitors and property agents Miller Hendry.
The law, which extends design copyright from 25 to 70 years, is aimed at preventing people and businesses producing replicas and knock-offs of the work of artists and designers.
s.52 of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act protected a designer’s work for 25 years after they die. It prohibited replicas of their work being made by an industrial process, or more than 50 being produced.
As a result of a recent Court of Justice of the European Union decision, s.52 was repealed, bringing UK law in line with EU regulations. That means designers and artists have protection for 70 years. Legal experts say that s.52 offered only limited protection and as a result was rarely used to enforce the rights of designers.
Alan Matthew, partner with Miller Hendry, commented: “The change in copyright law means works are now protected for 70 years after the death of the designer. Increasing protection to 70 years now gives designers protection back to 1950s. This brings design protection in line with standard copyright protection for literature and music.
“Stockists of replicas of protected designs have 6 months to sell, destroy or remove stock from the market. All replica stock which breaches the new rules must be gone by 28 January 2017.”
(Source: Miller Hendry Solicitors)
In the aftermath of the vote for Brexit, it transpires that there is actually no such thing as a Brexit, but potentially a number of Brexits that we could end up with.
In theory we could negotiate a Brexit where the UK leaves the EU but does not sever its ties to the EU’s ‘four freedoms’. By retaining its commitment to the freedom of movement of capital, goods, services and people, the UK could become a member of the European Economic Area (EEA). We could have the same status as Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein as non-EU members that are able to access the EU’s single market.
However as reducing immigration played such a large role in the recent Leave campaign it is likely the Government will attempt to restrict free movement of people in its negotiations with the EU. This seems like a sensible assumption especially in light of Theresa May’s recent comment that there would be no attempt to re-join the EU by the back door. This means the prospect of the UK joining the EEA is likely to be off the table from the outset.
This leaves the UK with a couple of other possibilities. Switzerland’s relationship with the EU is a possible example of what a post Brexit UK-EU relationship could look like. However this model is also fraught with problems. Switzerland currently has access to the European single market as a result of a series of bilateral agreements with the EU which include unrestricted immigration for EU nationals which it has recently attempted to renegotiate. Switzerland has been warned by the EU that it will lose access to the single market if it goes ahead with any limitations. This does not bode well for any UK advocates of this scenario.
However all is not lost as there is a precedent for a free trade agreement that gives access to the EU single market without full adherence to the principle of free movement in the shape of the bilateral free trade agreement between Canada and the EU (CETA). The agreement has been cited as an example of what future UK-EU trade relations could look like by both Boris Johnson and the new Brexit minister David Davis.
Canada’s international trade minister Chrystia Freeland has stated that she expects the new CETA deal to come into effect in early 2017. The implementation of CETA would mean that all tariffs on industrial products will be lifted between Canada and the EU as will nearly all tariffs on agricultural products. To secure this deal Canada has agreed to accept free movement of people between itself and most of the EU member countries; Bulgaria and Romania are excluded.
However Canada’s access to Europe’s single market of course falls far short of the access that the UK currently enjoys as a member of the EU. For example, the CETA agreement only grants limited access for the Canadian financial services industry. Considering how reliant the UK is on its own financial services industry (with the UK exporting over £22 billion worth of financial services to the EU in 2014) a similar deal is far from ideal for the UK economy.
Although the CETA negotiations were concluded in 2014, its implementation has been put at potential risk by Bulgaria and Romania’s announcement that they would be vetoing CETA. The UK, if it chooses to go down this route, could risk finding itself in a similar position down the line. One member state could object during the ratification process and potentially scupper the whole deal.
Ultimately what may help the UK negotiate itself a better deal than Canada is the fact that the UK’s economy is more integrated into the European economy than Canada’s. The UK currently absorbs a huge 16% of the EU’s exported goods. Furthermore 1.2 million British people live or work in the EU and over 3.3 million EU citizens live or work in the UK.
Clearly whichever path the UK takes, the economic needs of both Britain and the EU will have to be fully considered in any future negotiations. Any bad moves on either the principle of the free movement or restricting the UKs access to the single market risk hurting both the UK and Europe in which case no one wins.
(Source: Caron Pope, Managing Partner at Fragomen)
The UK Government's Digital Economy Bill, which is set to revamp current copyright legislation and was introduced in Parliament last week and now clear of its First Reading, has been welcomed by the Federation Against Software Theft.
Julian Heathcote Hobbins, General Counsel, FAST, stated: “One of the most important changes outlined in this Bill from the perspective of the software sector is the increased maximum sentences for online copyright infringement. The draft of the Digital Economy Bill published extends the current prison term from two to ten years. The relevant part amends the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, and simply replaces the word two with ten.”
In its submission in the Consultation phase FAST stated: “We support effective and dissuasive sanctions including against the commercial copyright pirate who “infringe the rights of copyright holders for large-scale financial gain”. However, it should be noted that FAST Industry members remain cautious on the use of the criminal law so that those who are vulnerable or who infringe unwittingly are not targeted. “
The Digital Economy Bill includes a range of measures in support the Government’s stated aim of driving the digital economy, including:
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for BIS and Minister for Intellectual Property, Baroness Neville-Rolfe said: "The UK is rightly known worldwide as home to some of the world’s most innovative and creative businesses, many for whom IP is key to their success. These measures strengthen the IP framework, ensuring the UK remains a great place to innovate and do business.”
Heathcote Hobbins added: “While the Bill aims to strengthen the UK copyright framework and bring criminal penalties for online and physical copyright infringement into line with the traditional copyright regime it is important to stress that this does not intend to criminalise people who are downloading content.”
“Criminal infringement only applies to making the material available to others. However, copyright owners can take civil legal action against individuals who download infringing material and they could be liable for substantial costs.”
FAST has been lobbying on behalf of copyright holders for this update for a long time. It is the industry’s contention that harsher penalties are needed to deter people from committing large-scale copyright infringement, and we are delighted the Government agrees with.
About The Federation Against Software Theft
IP underpins the investment made in software products enabling use of these products through a licensing regime in the UK and internationally. A stable, assured and certain IP anchor ensures obtaining the finance to enable investment in the software development lifecycle.
FAST aims to reduce, restrict and or lessen the incidence of unauthorised dealings in computer software. It works with its members, law enforcement communities (trading standards officers and local police forces), to detect and combat the sale of infringing software and it also helps organisations regularise their software estates when reports of possible misuse or under-licensing have been received about them.
(Source: fast.org.uk)
The average number of new tax cases sent to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has risen by a fifth since the credit crunch, as more businesses and other taxpayers use the court to challenge the actions of national tax authorities, says Pinsent Masons, the international law firm.
Pinsent Masons says that between 2005 and 2010, pre-credit crunch, there were 50 new tax cases per year on average brought to the ECJ. Between 2011 and 2015, this rose to 61 per year, an increase of 22%.
Pinsent Masons explains that since the credit crunch, national tax authorities across Europe have been under intense pressure to increase revenues, leading many to levy extra charges and ensure they maximize tax take wherever possible. Businesses and other taxpayers who believe they are being taxed unfairly in the process, contrary to principles of EU law, can bring a challenge to the CJEU.
Pinsent Masons explains that the CJEU has ruled in favour of business claimants against national tax authorities in several high-profile cases, enabling millions in overpaid tax to be re-claimed.
Andrew Scott, Director at Pinsent Masons, the international law firm, comments: “The reach of EU law has widened considerably and continues to do so, with the result that an increasing amount of UK tax law is affected. More businesses and other taxpayers have therefore managed to find grounds for challenging UK tax law.”
“EU law has been used to contest a range of taxes levied by member states. EU anti-discrimination rules were used to over-rule the UK’s tax treatment of dividends paid by foreign subsidiaries of UK companies, for instance. It was argued that, in contravention on EU single market rules, they were being taxed more heavily than dividends from UK subsidiaries.”
Brexit vote result could mean further rush of tax cases to CJEU
Pinsent Masons says that the prospect of withdrawing from the EU, following the result of the EU referendum, means that more claimants may want to commence their proceedings while it is clear that EU law still applies in the UK.
Andrew Scott adds: “Although it’s business as usual at present, Brexit means that the power of the CJEU over UK law will end but at an unknown time in the future. UK claimants will therefore be considering whether to launch proceedings now so as to increase the likelihood that their claims are protected as and when the UK does leave the EU.”
“UK claimants might be concerned that, once it is out of the EU, the UK government will attempt without notice- as they have in the past- to remove the ability to bring a claim based on EU grounds even where EU law applied at the relevant time.”
(Source: Pinsent Masons)
Following the Turkish President backing the return of the death penalty, Kristin Hausler, Dorset Senior Research Fellow at the British Institute of International and Comparative Law (BIICL), provides a response to the potentially monumental decision. The comments are based on a recent BIICL report on the rule of law in Turkey:
“It has been reported that President Recep Tayyip Erdogan says he is ready to reinstate the death penalty ‘if the people demand it’. This would be a step backwards as the death penalty was abolished in Turkey in 2004 (amendment to Art 38 Constitution) and the Turkish Constitutional Court has upheld the validity of the legislation abolishing it. In fact, there has not been any execution of prisoners since 1984. As the death penalty has been abolished under Turkish constitutional law (amendment to Article 38 of the Constitution), there would need to be another constitutional amendment to reinstate the death penalty, but to initiate constitutional reform, a referendum must be called by a ‘supermajority’ of parliament members (at present the AKP does not have such majority, which consists of 330 seats). There would then need to be the backing of other parties to do so.
“In addition, Turkey has also ratified Protocol No. 6 to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) concerning abolition of the death penalty. While derogations to the ECHR can be made in time of emergency, in accordance with Article 15 ECHR, derogation from Article 2, which provides for the right to life, is not permissible. While Article 2 allows for deprivation of life in the ‘execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law’, Protocol No. 6 to the European Convention on Human Rights does not allow any derogation to it under Article 15 ECHR. Turkey would then have to amend its Constitution and denounce Protocol 6 of the ECHR, in order to reinstate the death penalty, which would be seen by the international community as a step backwards. All of the States which are party to the Council of Europe have signed and ratified this Protocol, except for Russia which has only signed it.”
(Source: British Institute of International and Comparative Law)
The American public faces significant, unmet legal needs that require considerably more innovation and other efforts to bolster access to affordable legal services, the ABA Commission on the Future of Legal Services said in a report.
The commission, releasing findings from a two-year study, offered 10 recommendations to build on past national efforts and to ensure that everyone has meaningful assistance for essential legal means. The recommendations call for sweeping changes to both the civil and criminal systems of justice.
One recommendation, urging state courts to adopt model regulatory objectives for the delivery of legal services, was approved as ABA policy by the House of Delegates in February. Other recommendations have been debated but not embraced by the Association, such as alternative business structures (ABS) for US law firms. As part of a broader recommendation, the commission said future “exploration” of ABS would be “useful.”
The commission’s10 recommendations, all accompanied by sub-recommendations and supporting materials, are:
(Source: ABA)
The augmented reality game Pokémon Go may have taken over the public consciousness but it is creating serious questions around the issues of privacy and property, says UK Tayside based solicitors and estate agents Miller Hendry.
The cultural sensation that is crashing servers, topping download charts, losing people off cliffs and generating plenty of news headlines is also directly affecting homeowners and dwellers, as well as business owners. Not only is there a privacy issue but there are question marks over the virtual space around a building and who, if anyone, owns it.
Business places, landmarks and places of cultural interest can unwittingly be designated as PokéStops or Pokémon Gyms – both essential stop-offs for players of Pokémon Go - with only the game’s maker, Niantic, deciding where these virtual pit stops will be. However, there is a distinct possibility that people may live in them, says Miller Hendry, which points to inhabited buildings such as stately homes and converted churches as examples.
And while so far businesses have reacted favourably to being PokéStops, Pokémon Gyms or a place where the Pokémon creatures have been spotted – with many seeing its potential marketing benefits – others are acknowledging that it creates problems.
Perth & Kinross Council recently posted a notice on its Facebook page asking that, in the interests of safety, people not enter its Friarton Recycling Centre, a place where Pokémon can be caught. “We have requested that the Pokémon be moved onto a more suitable location where trainers can go to battle in a safer environment,” said the statement.
Due to the inherent legal issues surrounding the game’s popularity, Miller Hendry is this week launching a series of blogs on the subject.
Alistair Duncan, commercial property expert at Miller Hendry, said:
“An example of where we may see issues arising is where a commercial business that is drawing Pokémon Go players to its premises, by being a PokéStop or Pokémon Gym or paying for one of the ‘lure modules’ that attracts the game’s creatures to it, shares the space with residences. The inhabitants could feasibly get uncomfortable with a large influx of people being around their places of residence with smart phones and camera capability, and at all hours of the day or night. And, of course, there’s also the issue of the business owner not wanting to take part at all yet having no choice, as happened with the Holocaust Museum in Washington and, just recently, Friarton Recycling Centre in Perth.
“Another concern is with private property owners living in a place that used to be, or perhaps still is, a landmark or cultural destination, such as stately homes, churches and converted buildings. There has already been a publicized case of a man living in a church which was considered a landmark and ended up as a Pokémon Gym. The subsequent crowds are an issue not just for the dweller but for his or her neighbours. It poses the question: in the case of virtual space, where does your property line end?
“And while the game’s maker, Niantic, has advised players not to approach private properties whilst playing the game, we have already heard stories of players who are doing just that – knocking on people’s doors and telling them they are searching for a Pokémon in or around the property.
“The last thing we at Miller Hendry want to do is curb people’s enthusiasm for the game, or put a stop to the fun. However, the popularity of Pokémon Go has generated concerns for property owners across the board, from private individuals to business owners. ‘No Pokémon Go-ing’ could well be the new ‘No soliciting’ sign. When virtual space around a home or business starts being used for marketing and advertising purposes – something we believe is not far down the line - there will be interesting legal battles over who owns that space.”
(Source: Miller Hendry Solicitors)
A new legal opinion, written by two former Justice Department officials from the Antitrust Division, argues that a merger between Bayer and Monsanto would violate the Clayton Act, a law enacted by Congress to curb anti-competitive business practices.
According to the white paper, a Bayer-Monsanto merger would also be in direct violation of a 2008 court order, where Monsanto was forced to divest itself of certain cottonseed and cotton breeding assets, which were sold to Bayer. If the merger proceeds, Monsanto would re-acquire these anti-competitive traits, thereby violating the US Department of Justice’s judgement.
The legal opinion points out that:
“A merger between Bayer and Monsanto is a five-alarm threat to our food supply and to farmers around the world,” explained Anne Isakowitsch, Senior Campaigner with SumOfUs. “This new mega corporation would be the world’s biggest seed maker and pesticide company, defying important antitrust protections, giving it unacceptable control over critical aspects of our food supply -- undermining consumer choice and the freedom and stability of farmers worldwide.”
SumOfUs, an international corporate watchdog, released the legal opinion as Bayer, a German chemical and pharmaceutical giant, increases its efforts to acquire Monsanto, one of the world’s largest producers of chemicals and farm inputs.
More than 500,000 SumOfUs members around the world have signed onto a petition opposing the potential merger of Monsanto and Bayer.
The legal opinion was written by Maurice E. Stucke and Allen P. Grunes, counsels at the Konkurrenz group. Maurice Stuck is a law professor at the University of Tennessee, with twenty years’ experience handling a range of competition policy issues in both private practice and as a prosecutor with the Antitrust Division of the US Department of Justice. Allen Grunes spent more than a decade at the US Department of Justice Antitrust Division, where he led many merger and civil non-merger investigations in radio, television, newspapers, motion pictures, and other industries.
(Source: SumOfUs)
