The Charity Commission (‘the commission’), the independent regulator of charities in England and Wales, has recently published ‘Charities and litigation – a guide for trustees (CC38)’.

The prospect of taking or defending legal proceedings is often a difficult and complex matter for trustees that can present significant risk to a charity. This brand new guidance clarifies the issues that trustees need to consider when faced with litigation and helps them comply with their legal obligations as well as their duty to act in the best interests of their charity.

Decisions on whether or not to take or defend legal action should be made in accordance with the principles set out in the commission’s existing guidance on decision making, ‘It's your decision: charity trustees and decision making (CC27)’.

Trustees should also identify and address the potential risks and impact of litigation on their charity and its beneficiaries. In applying those principles to decisions involving litigation, the guidance highlights the need for trustees to take and consider legal advice, to assess the economic prospects of success or failure and the impact on the charity, and consider whether their intended actions are proportionate in all the circumstances and in the best interests of the charity. The guidance also indicates when trustees need to protect themselves against the adverse risk of costs and outlines alternative ways to resolve the issue in dispute that trustees should explore before legal action such as mediation and negotiation.

The guidance also contains detailed information on charity proceedings, a specific category of legal claim concerning the internal administration of charities which require authorisation from the commission. This includes how to make an application to seek the commission’s consent, to help trustees prepare for these typically time sensitive situations.

The commission finalised the guidance following valuable input from the Charity Law Association’s specialist working group.

Kenneth Dibble, Chief Legal Advisor at the Charity Commission said: “Legal action can present significant risk to a charity’s beneficiaries, assets, and reputation, but in some circumstances it may be the best or only option. This guidance aims to help trustee bodies reach a justified decision on litigation and crucially, to manage risk effectively by assessing the challenges and costs their charity might face and deciding how to deal with them.

“We encourage any trustees thinking of engaging in litigation to read our new guidance, apply the principles set out in our existing guidance on decision making, and to contact us as a matter of priority if they require our protection from adverse costs or authorisation to proceed.”

(Source: Charity Commission)

New online courts for civil cases designed to help make the justice system more user-friendly could be introduced, thanks in part to the work of a University of Exeter academic in the UK.

The courts would be for “low value” cases, designed so people can navigate the process of managing disputes more easily and cheaply.

It is hoped online courts will ensure delivery of faster and fairer justice for users by making better use of technology and modernising working practices. Disputes would be resolved early without a judge having to become involved.

Their introduction was recently recommended by Lord Justice Briggs, Deputy Head of Civil Justice, in the final report of his structure review of the civil courts.

The recommendation comes after a study by an expert group, including Dr Sue Prince, Associate Professor at the University of Exeter Law School, suggested online civil law courts would increase access to justice and streamline the court processes in England and Wales.

A significant number of cases that go to civil courts tend to be small claims generally under £10,000 or are disputes over money, or services, or low value personal injury claims. Businesses may also use small claims to reclaim debt.

Drastic cuts to legal aid have led to an increase in the number of people who are unable to afford a lawyer and have to circumnavigate the courts alone.  Seeking help for everyday problems can be complicated and expensive in the current court system.

Professor Prince was part of an advisory group set up by the Civil Justice Council (CJC) to explore the role of online dispute resolution (ODR) in resolving civil disputes across the internet, using techniques such as skype, e-negotiation and e-mediation. The group published a report recommending that a dedicated state-run online court to operate alongside the traditional court system.

The UK Government has already previously committed £700 million to using technology to reform the courts system.

Lord Justice Briggs’ Civil Court Structure Review proposed the new online court and said it would improve access to justice and be simpler for people to use than the current court system.  He endorsed the work of the Advisory Group.

Professor Prince said: “I am very pleased that Lord Justice Briggs has taken on board our proposals and the judiciary are so whole-heartedly in support of creating new online court systems. It would give more people access to justice and make the process easier to navigate for them.

“These are ambitious, innovative and exciting plans and I believe they could make the justice system simpler and more user-friendly.”

(Source: University of Exeter)

In 2013, with the introduction of the Jackson reforms, the legal sector had to dramatically change the way in which it generated leads. These changes signalled a new era for the sector as law firms were forced to rethink the company structure in order to secure new business, as the ‘no win, no fee’ model was turned on its head. Now that law firms are taking matters into their own hands, the question is: how can law firms increase the number of leads they generate? UK based firm Ruler Analytics ‘closes the loop’ between marketing and sales by matching real customer data against the exact marketing source from which it was generated. Utilising visitor level journey tracking to definitively calculate ROI for every marketing channel.

Here, Lawyer Monthly talks to Daniel Reilly, Co-Founder of Ruler Analytics, on how their new software can help law firms tackle the growing issue of marketing their business.

How did the Jackson Reforms change the way law firms approach the legal market? What limitations were imposed and what has been the alternative?
The banning of referral fees being paid and received, following the Jackson reforms, changed the way a lot of legal firms approached their marketing almost overnight. Profitable firms, which previously did little to no marketing and opted to rely heavily on cheap, risk free, leads from third parties such as garages, claim companies and online affiliates, could no longer access these as a revenue source.

Since the reforms came into effect, these law firms have had to rely on their own marketing efforts to generate leads and remain competitive - having found themselves in a suddenly crowded market place. Many chose to dive head first into the previously alien world of online marketing as the land of opportunity. While this is a great way to market their firm, many have struggled to adapt straight away, as it has required the creation of new department focus that previously never existed.

Since the ‘no win, no fee’ method was turned on its head in 2013, how have law firms had to adapt their marketing strategies?
As well as banning referral fees, the Jackson reforms also did away with the ‘no win, no fee’ model, allowing law firms to avoid the more hazardous claims. However, this also reduced their potential customer base, and affected the number of people claiming, meaning that every penny spent on marketing had to count. While for decades marketing departments have been seen as ‘fee burners’ and a poor relation to fee earning lawyers, in light of the Jackson reforms, legal firms have to re-weight their focus on the role of marketing. In fact, according to a survey of 150 legal professionals1, over a third have increased their marketing budgets since 2014.

For legal marketing departments to demonstrate the true ROI of their marketing efforts, and justify budgets for marketing campaigns, it’s important to know how leads are generated. This can be achieved by establishing the marketing source of the lead - this information can help law firms to identify what their most effective and least effective marketing channels are so they can tailor their efforts accordingly.

Stephensons law firm, which has offices in Altrincham, Horwich, Manchester, London, St. Helens, Leigh and Wigan, has utilised data analytics and the Ruler Analytics package to drive productivity, generate leads and track ROI. The marketing team wanted to demonstrate clearer ROI to each legal service department and support business development in terms of giving them more specific visitor profiles. There was a need to have better management information regarding the source of work, as it was often difficult to determine from clients if they have clicked on a paid for link, or come through organically.

Realising the importance and opportunity in determining how leads are generated Stephensons enlisted the help of Ruler Analytics to help enable them to see which keywords had brought visitors onto the site organically, making for a more informed, key-word friendly marketing and advertising strategy. With the software, the team now has the ability to determine which calls come from paid for or organic searches, as well as garner a better overall understanding of the ROI on their activities and justify budgets.

How can law firms track and analyse their adapted marketing efforts? How can they guarantee their method is successful?

Lead generation is crucial in identifying potential clients. Online leads can come in from numerous sources such as search engines, email marketing, banner advertising and social media, so it’s essential that law firms analyse their marketing efforts to ensure they focus their budgets on the sources that are resulting in the most leads.

One of the main online marketing channels for law firms, especially the one’s beginning from a standing start position, is Pay Per Click (PPC). This normally runs on a bidding model where the highest bidder takes the top position in search results.

However, the problem most firms face with this model is that the technology to track whether these clicks are successful in generating revenue are, in most cases, limited to online conversion. With many people choosing to call rather than complete an online form, it has made it very difficult for law firms to justify their PPC spend. Many may have resorted to guesswork to determine what drove sales and which keywords were used to get potential buyers onto their site.

However, there are now innovative integrated calltracking and analytics packages available, which allow marketing departments to get the missing piece of the puzzle, as well as improve their conversion rate online and by phone.

This type of cohesive software can carefully monitor the individual client acquisition journey online, measuring conversions and tracking phone calls, by corresponding website conversions to keyword searches or sources. The call tracking software also links sales directly to PPC, organic, mobile and offline marketing campaigns.

ROI can then be determined by matching marketing channels and initial enquiries to fees earned. By using such data software, law firms can better inform their marketing strategies and base decisions on fact, rather than guesswork. With this information, they can focus on the marketing campaigns that are the most successful and target more customers.

How can a law firm identify the source of work, whether itbe pay per click or via organic reach?

Most analytics packages available will identify the source of a click and identify how someone landed on a website by corresponding website conversions to keyword searches or sources. However, the second that user picks up the phone or does any offline action the source will be lost. The only way the source can still be identified is if the firm in question has call tracking software installed. Integrated visitor lever analytics and call tracking software will be able to provide the missing information and match the keyword data to the visitor journey, conversion or phone call to reveal the exact source of the lead. Law firms will also be able to discover lead location using software that can track leads from logging the users IP (Internet Protocol) address.

At what point can a law firm implement new strategies on the back of a successful ROI?

Once a ROI has been demonstrated, law firms can analyse their marketing strategies to determine which
campaigns are the most successful and profitable. Armed with this information, marketing departments can remove spend from less profitable campaigns, and use these savings to put into more profitable campaigns and test new ones. It means firms can cut costs and ensure spend from the marketing department is going as far as possible, as well as making sure no marketing effort goes
to waste.

What alternative strategies would you recommend law firms implement in order to gain more valuable work?
Other than using data and call tracking to maximise ROI, there are a number of PPC marketplaces developing on social networks such as Facebook, Linkedin and Twitter, which should be explored. These all have more advanced user targeting, as these networks contain more individual user data to target upon. It’s also worth mentioning organic search engine optimisation and content marketing as a way of generating leads.

Finally it’s important to look inward to your website and how it is setup for mobile and conversion. A small change here can affect all of your campaigns in a positive way.

How would you advise law firms to increase their clientele, while still ensuring the utmost quality and attention is given to them?
Be experimental and don’t be afraid to try a variety of channels to see what works. For firms refining or embarking on their first marketing campaign, key performance indicators (KPIs) are key to define what success will look like.

Once an organisation knows what success will look like, the next step is to actually measure it across the client acquisition journey. It’s important to track everything in order to make ccurate decisions on whether the campaign worked or not.

Small onsite changes can also make big differences to boost clientele. Firms can use data to see how a customer moves through a website. Understanding this journey will give firms useful information about how the client finds the website and whether it is easy to navigate or not. Data can also reveal if people searching for something are immediately exiting the page because perhaps the brand is confusing or not providing the information that they require.

How does Ruler Analytics’ software tie in with Google Analytics data?
Ruler Analytics fully integrates with Google Analytics allowing data to pass between each platform. While Google Analytics is a staple for digital marketers the world over, the application doesn’t look to provide details on individual users, companies, calls and tie them back to leads. This automation therefore means that marketers can gain greater insight into the client acquisition journey by simplifying, and adding to, the limited and complex information Google Analytics provides.

Ruler Analytics differs from Google Analytics though, by having integrated call tracking, company and user identification. The tools provide information such as which company the visitor is from, what keywords and source they used to find the firm and which pages they visited. In terms of call tracking, these packages also give insight into whether it was an inbound call and what was said on the call.

Ruler Analytics also re-provides the keywords marketers can’t get on Google Analytics. While Google Analytics has removed keyword data from its organic search information, Ruler Analytics provides ‘reprovided’ information providing valuable insights on the keywords used for customer acquisition. Combining this information with the attribution for online enquiries and phone calls at keyword level, the software allows marketers to better inform their marketing strategies and base decisions on fact, rather than guesswork.

How can this software be used as a tool for reputation growth and therefore an increase in appeal to certain legal sectors?
The software gives law firms the ability to track and listen back to the calls they receive so they can determine whether the call was answered or not and how long it took to answer. By analysing the quality of the inbound calls, firms can make key decisions about how their staff deal with customers and make operational improvements when required. By ensuring employee’s answer calls promptly and effectively, law firms can enhance their customer experience and grow their brand’s reputation within the marketplace.

In a landmark asbestosis case, The Court of Appeal recently ruled that asbestosis sufferers could be entitled to proportional compensation from as low as 2.3% from negligent employers, based upon the number of years worked. The historic ruling confirms that proportional compensation is applicable even if the employer’s overall contribution to the condition was minimal and the entitlement was as low as 2.3%.

The ruling relates to retired electrician, Mr Albert Carder, who was exposed to asbestos whilst working at Exeter University. Although most of his asbestos exposure occurred earlier in his career, Mr Carder’s lawyers, Moore Blatch, calculated that his employment at the university contributed 2.3% toward his asbestosis.

The Court of Appeal has upheld the calculation and judgement made by The High Court in July 2015 that Mr Carder was entitled to compensation. But at the time Exeter University’s insurers appealed, arguing the proportion of the exposure was minimal and had made "no discernible difference to his condition."

Moore Blatch asbestos disease lawyer John Hedley, representing Mr Carder comments: “This decision is very important and will influence other asbestos cases. Whilst there is a long established principle around minimal contributions to asbestos exposure by employers, this case helps define what minimal actually means. We can confidently say this contribution can be as low as 2.3% or even less. Whilst the compensation is not substantial, it will help Mr Carder and the ruling will help many other people who are in a similar position.”

Mr Carder said: “It’s a huge relief for this case to have finally settled and to also know that I can return to court, should my condition deteriorate, which is of great comfort to me and my family. When I started my career asbestos was thought to be such a wonderful thing; unfortunately we were not made aware of the dangers.”

Mr Carder’s overall damages from his total exposure to asbestos were assessed at approximately £67,500, with the university’s contribution confirmed to be £1,713.

Mr Hedley believes: “This case has broader significance and could impact on a large number of other industrial disease and work related illness cases. The Defendant is trying to appeal again following the Court of Appeal’s decision so we would assume that the insurers believe the issue is important enough to invest significant sums in legal costs in trying to win. There is no way of estimating the total number of cases that could be affected, but it is reasonable to assume that it must be substantial.”

(Source: Moore Blatch)

The Serious Fraud Office (SFO), as Britain’s prosecutor of serious fraud, bribery and corruption cases, finds itself under attack from various angles if it ever missteps, particularly in high profile cases. One recurring source of pressure has been Theresa May’s long-held enmity towards the SFO, and her desire to incorporate it within the National Crime Agency (NCA). In February, it was announced by the then-Home Secretary’s spokesperson that the NCA would be given ‘power of direction’ over the SFO. Now that May is Prime Minister, the SFO will surely be worried for its future.

The SFO’s work has long been fraught with turbulence and controversy. One account of the first decade of its existence – 1988 to 1998 - documented a series of collapsed trials and failed prosecutions, a pattern which has continued in recent years, culminating with the botched investigation into the affairs of Robert and Vincent Tchenguiz, which dragged from 2011 to 2014 and led to a multi-million pound pay out.

More recently, the SFO has seen their long running ‘blockbuster’ investigation into Libor, fall prey to similar instability. Following on from the initial success of the conviction of Tom Hayes, currently appealing the 11 year sentence he received, the second trial represented a rude awakening. All six defendants were acquitted, leading many to question whether the SFO was fit for purpose.

The third Libor trial, however, marked more of a mixed bag for the SFO. While it resulted in four convictions, only one was a unanimous decision by the court, alongside two majority verdicts and a guilty plea. The other two cases resulted in no decision from the jury, and the SFO is currently preparing for a retrial. While this was heralded as a success, the SFO has currently achieved only five convictions out of 13 in their flagship investigation, at a present cost of £21,424,868.

Although David Green QC, the SFO’s present director, has worked to restore its battered reputation since his appointment in 2012, fundamental issues still remain. There is a high turnover of staff, especially problematic in investigations that often run for multiple years, and a difficulty in attracting high-calibre talent. In the Civil Service People Survey, only 23% of the SFO workforce felt their pay “adequately reflects” their performance. More damningly, just 18% felt they received reasonable pay when compared to those doing a similar job in other organisations.

It is unlikely that May’s opinions on the SFO will have changed since February, or that she will be willing, in these economically uncertain times, to provide the funding required for the SFO to remedy some of its fundamental issues. The simple fact is that, however effective the SFO may or may not be in dealing with specialised fraud, the NCA is simply cheaper to run. This could be the justification for May to finally dismantle the SFO, in spite of the recent Libor convictions and seizure of £20m in 2015 to 2016, during which time their spend was £58.9m according to their most recent accounts.

(Source: Steve Cochrane)

The dismantling and restructuring of Turkey's judiciary by the country's President, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, is in direct contravention of international legal norms and principles, as well as Article 138 of the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey, and must end, states the International Bar Association (IBA).

Further, the IBA leadership calls on President Erdogan to reinstate recently dismissed judges and prosecutors, including two members of the Constitutional Court and ten members of Turkey's highest administrative court.

As the culling of judges, prosecutors, journalists and members of other organs that constitute a democratic society continues, following the attempted coup of 15 July, and the space in which Turkey's citizens can voice dissent evaporates, IBA President David W Rivkin calls for President Erdogan to halt the arrests and limit the damage to the proper administration of justice in Turkey caused by his actions.

Mr Rivkin commented: “President Erdogan's fierce and unrelenting assault on Turkey's democratic institutions in violation of international law and the nation's Constitution has removed any credibility for his actions. The arbitrary job dismissals, suspensions and arrests of more than 60,000 Turkish citizens in under a week, the imposed three-month state of emergency and the intention to re-instate the death penalty are extreme by any measurement, and chilling in the absence of judicial recourse.”

He added: “Turkey's own Constitution states that judges ‘shall be independent in the discharge of their duties... No organ, authority, office or individual may give orders or instructions to courts or judges related to the exercise of judicial power’. President Erdogan should respect this clause, provide transparent evidence for the detention of individual judges or reinstate them. To the extent that judges or anyone else are charged with being members of a terrorist group, they are entitled to due process and a fair hearing. That includes allowing them to be represented by the lawyers of their choice and making sure that these lawyers are not subject to any intimidation by the government for taking on that representation.”

The IBA is receiving communications from Turkey and understands that under a new law, there will be fewer judges, and that new appointments will be carried out by the High Council of Judges and Prosecutors, which operates under the mandate of the Justice Ministry. Also, the new law provides that 25 per cent of members of the Council of State - Turkey's highest administrative court - are to be presidential appointments and that all existing members of the Supreme Court and Council of State are to be dismissed and new ones appointed in pursuance with the new legislative framework.

IBA Executive Director Dr Mark Ellis concludes: “By passing laws that will be difficult to repeal, President Erdogan's extreme actions can only be interpreted as an abuse of power. Certainly, the attempted coup called for an immediate response, but not at the abandonment of Turkey's Constitution nor international legal principles. As a member of the United Nations, Turkey has violated established international legal standards to which it must adhere. The Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary states, ‘The independence of the judiciary shall be guaranteed by the State and enshrined in the Constitution or the law of the country. It is the duty of all governmental and other institutions to respect and observe the independence of the judiciary’.”

He added: “The measures taken by President Erdogan have endangered the independence of judges and rendered the judiciary subject to political influence. This serves to undermine judicial impartiality, fundamental to ensuring the stability of Turkey's legal institutions, and has consequently diminished public confidence in both the judiciary and the government. President Erdogan should abide by the national, regional and international law provisions that affirm the necessity of an independent judiciary.”

(Source: IBA)

The Bar Council has responded to Lord Justice Briggs’ Civil Courts Structure Review.

Chairman of the Bar, Chantal-Aimée Doerries QC, said: “Efforts to modernise the courts and improve efficiencies in our justice system are essential. It is surely time to make a proper investment in our civil justice system for the future, to provide justice for all. We shall study this report, which contains many innovative recommendations, carefully, not least to assess its impact on access to justice.

“Any moves towards an online court for claims of up to £25,000 must avoid the risk of entrenching a system of two-tier justice whereby individuals opting to use a 'lawyerless' online court process could easily find themselves in litigation with big organisations which can afford to hire their own legal teams.

"Sir Michael Briggs is right to acknowledge that the success of the online court will depend critically on digital assistance for all those challenged by the use of computers, and on continuing improvement in public legal education.

"In reviewing these proposals, we must also assess what impact they may have on the world-renowned reputation of our legal system, which needs protecting more than ever in the current changing climate."

(Source: Bar Council)