Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
Dr Michael Scheele has an impressive background working with international companies on commercial issues. After being exposed to foreign legal issues early in his career and representing the likes of Michael Jackson, Dr Scheele quickly developed a flair for international legal issues, especially in the MENA region.
In this article, he speaks about the role of the of-counsel network, and why choosing a boutique firm, such as Legal Alliance, has its advantages.
Why did you decide to give special attention to legal consulting in the MENA region?
Essentially, the need for legal services in the Gulf region is increasing for the following reason: two processes which will determine the development of relationships with the MENA countries are taking place simultaneously. The increased pace of economic internationalisation, which is proving to be the driving force behind global growth and the transformation of the economic and state structures in those countries.
Are western companies prepared for such challenges?
The described processes require that those active in the Middle East and North Africa economies double their efforts to adapt. Some MENA countries must undergo complicated reforms, move to private ownership and develop market economy whilst being exposed to increasingly keener global competition. Western companies investing in individual MENA countries must confront varying speeds of reform, changing infrastructures and unfamiliar cultural factors, all of which complicate the choice of location.
What do you consider to be your firm’s role in giving best advice and consultation in the decision-making process?
In future, legal and strategic consultants in this field will have a truly multi-cultural bridge building role. This will differ significantly from the role of consultants advising on exclusively Western matters. It will be necessary to assist companies and institutions to reduce the insecurity arising from structural change and to build up a basis of mutual trust, despite great differences in levels of development.
Ultimately, the services of Legal Alliance’s lawyers, include legal consultation and representation which are offered to individuals, business people, companies and management.
Legal Alliance has also engaged of-counsels in other than MENA countries, such as USA, Brazil, China, Hong Kong, India and various countries in Europe. Can you explain the reasons behind this?
Legal Alliance perceives and understands itself as the gateway for other lawyers and their clients, who are looking for an access to those markets and jurisdictions, where Legal Alliance is represented by members of its international network. We help to open doors for colleagues worldwide. But it is also our ambition, not to be a “one way” street only.
Could you explain this in more detail?
Sure, there are more and more companies in the MENA countries, who are looking for international cooperation partners, be it for investments in Western countries, for technology transfer or for import. And these companies need professional legal advice in the respective western countries or in China, India or the USA to name only a few of our member states, where we have of-counsels.
Could you give us an example?
All MENA countries have a deficit in infrastructure or a need in keeping pace with necessary constructions, such as roads, houses, extensions of ports and airports. One of our clients disposes of nanotechnological innovations, which are superior to the conventional methods in products and construction. The Arab company was considering either to import the product or to form a joint venture and have a technology transfer to such a joint venture company.
What was the final solution?
We advised our client, to begin the cooperation on a regular import basis to first test the reliability of the partner, especially with regard to the professional capability of implementing the new technology – of course with the assistance of our client’s engineers. This initial period was also used, to test the efficiency and practicability of the new technology.
How did it continue?
The results encouraged our client, to go to phase two, establishing a joint venture. This required substantial legal work, since the laws in this Arab country required a majority shareholder ship of the local partner. And the legal framework of such joint venture had to provide a legal security for our partner. Most importantly, we had to agree and implement arbitration clauses, which could and will safeguard fair and objective rulings, in case it should come to a conflict. It was essential, to cooperate with our local of-counsel, who was familiar with the laws in that jurisdiction.
Can you give us an example regarding the benefits of Legal Alliance’s service for private persons?
There is a demand from various nationals in the MENA region to get either residence permits or even citizenship in foreign countries, mainly in Europe. Likewise, there is a considerable demand from HNIW’s (those who own assets above a million Euro) to get residence permits, for example in the UAE.
We could and can assist in both cases – of course with the support of our of-counsel network.
What do you consider the most common cases, which Legal Alliance is handling, where your network is of greatest benefit?
Undoubtedly it is trade, export from Germany or other western countries to Arab countries. One of our clients, a relatively young company, is the producer of health products of dietary supplements and cosmetic products, which for some reasons have certain advantages and unique selling points compared to similar products. They first started the export to Egypt and found out that this market is exceptionally interesting. With the help of our network we could get other Arab countries interested in the same products. Being represented in these markets with a local of-counsel, the client did not need different law firms for each of the designated countries. The consulting work remained in our hand and in the hands of the respective of-counsels, where the client decided to get engaged.
The same applies to an Austrian consumer good called “Fellinger Royal”. A non-alcoholic, Halal produced sparkling wine. We assisted first in the UAE. And after a successful market entry there, this product made its way to other Muslim countries, including Iran, where we are also represented by an of-counsel.
Legal Alliance is, what you call, a boutique law firm. How did it happen or what were the reasons for you, to focus on international mandates?
My affinity to and interest for foreign countries is definitely due to the early experience as an exchange student in the USA. Soon thereafter, I graduated as an interpreter for English, became Honorary Consul for the young Republic of Seychelles (with jurisdiction in all of Germany). As a very young lawyer I had the privilege of representing Michael Jackson and other international celebrities. Also, I served as a member of the committee, which elaborated and drafted the first democratic constitution of the Republic of Albania.
In other words, international issues have been an integral part of my life as a lawyer. It gives me great satisfaction, to build or participate in building international bridges.
Can you understand or explain, why your internationally operating clients choose a boutique law firm rather than a “big player” law firm for their international transactions?
I guess, you would have to ask one of our clients, to get an objective answer. But seriously, apart from different “tariffs” we found, that the very individual and personal touch has always been decisive for the client. Let me give you an example: once we had to organise a hostile takeover of a cement company in Eastern Europe. Such actions require not only the necessary funds from the client, but a substantial trust in the discretion of the lawyer. A discretion, that can and may be better ensured with a small group of lawyers.
Dr Michael Scheele
Legal Alliance Rechtsanwalts GmbH
Prinzregentenplatz 15
81675 München
Tel +49 89 41 94 65 0
Fax +49 89 41 94 65 66
E-Mail: info@legalalliance.com
Dr. Michael Scheele was admitted to the bar in Munich in 1977, became member of the lawyer association in St. Petersburg (Russia) in 1991 and was licensed as legal consultant in Dubai (UAE) by the Ruler´s Court. He has advised numerous companies, which operate nationally and internationally in commercial issues as well as national and international artists in matters of media and press law. Dr. Scheele is also working as columnist for various newspapers and magazines and has published himself several popular scientific books as editor as well as author.
He studied law at the University of Munich (LMU) and Stetson University (Deland, Fla, USA) and was awarded Doctor of law 1978 (civil procedure law). From 1979 until 1989 he was accredited Honorary Consul of the Republic of Seychelles (jurisdiction Germany). Also he founded the citizens` group “Fair Press” and acted as member of the constitutional committee of the Republic of Albania.
In 2015 Dr. Scheele joint the law firm Meyer-Reumann (Dubai, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran) as an of-counsel-non equity Partner.
LEGAL ALLIANCE is a firm of lawyers and tax counsellors in Munich (headquarter) Berlin and Hamburg, specialized in business law, corporate and commercial law, mergers & acquisitions, media law, (intellectual property, copyright, press), tax planning, law of financial services, insolvency law and cross border transactions. To meet the self-determined high-quality standard of professional service, LEGAL ALLIANCE employs and cooperates only with lawyers and accountants who have proved their qualifications by above average university degrees and/or doctors degree in law. All members of the professional staff speak at least one foreign language.
Earlier this month, the UK government unveiled a tool that can accurately detect jihadist content and block it from being viewed. This is obviously good news for tackling extremism and protecting sensitive eyes from seeing morbid content. It will prevent deranged messages from being spread and the confused from following delusional propaganda, which again, is a middle finger to extreme terrorists such as the much-despised ISIS.
I, as much as the next person, gain no thrill from viewing twisted, abusive videos, but there is a growing concern that such a tool blocking us from seeing such content is like pulling wool over our eyes on what is really going on in the world.
Such censorship raises several questions: what counts as ‘extremist’ and where do we draw the line between not conforming to societal expectations and being ‘extreme’?
Gandhi was once considered ‘extreme’, by some, for protesting against the controversial Rowlatt Act, which allowed the British to imprison anyone they suspected of terrorism without trial. We can see why Gandhi rebelled, and in hindsight it was for the greater good, but nonetheless his stance from the British point of view was once deemed extremist.
I’m not saying that in the year 2050 we may be thanking ISIS, but blocking a controversial voice can impede the development of a better society.
There are several arguments around this. Restricting access to information is somewhat an infringement of democratic freedoms. And what about our rights to freedom of speech? Content constructed to impede governments and constitutions of free speech are subject to judicial review, especially in the US.
And as previously discussed, we have some rights when it comes to freedom of speech, but they won’t always soften the blow if we fall head first when speaking out on something controversial.
Interestingly enough, in a survey conducted by the Internet Society, 86% of the 10,789 participants strongly agreed with freedom of expression on the internet[1].
Nonetheless, tying our hands behind our backs to prevent us from speaking out is a debate which will never end; some will agree, others will disagree. Society is everchanging and today’s madman could become next year’s saviour… that is if our internet browser will allow us to read the madman’s words.
Is this a step back into 1984?
Blocking extremist propaganda is censorship at its best and the more we read into it, the more we admire Orwell for potentially predicting the future.
Censorship mechanisms which are imposed by governments often not only prevents certain discourse, but also identifies and punishes those who engage in what authorities may perceive as the wrong, or a form of distasteful, discourse.
“You have to be odd to be number one”, said Dr Seuss, but I am not sure he knew that being the black sheep of the herd could translate to jailtime[i].
So, what is ‘Big Brother’ watching out for? Commonly censored materials include those:
An example of upcoming internet censorship laws are the reforms to the Digital Economy Act; in April the UK will see legislative reforms regarding online pornography play pretend father for children by protecting them from viewing explicit content.
In the UK, there are no government restrictions on access to the Internet. Individuals and groups routinely use the Internet, to express a wide range of views.[ii] The notion for filtering content originally derived from manifesto commitments concerning "the commercialisation and sexualisation of childhood" given by David Cameron and Nick Clegg in 2010.[iii]
However, this did see an adversary effect, where many sites often providing advice, such as child protection services and drug and sexual health advice being blocked. Even though censored websites are more regulated now by people than solely ISPs and AI, will hiding content save our children? Probably not. One day they will be exposed to it all and mollycoddling them throughout their teens may result in a detrimental ‘Arkangelic’ episode.
Yet it seems that, on such situations, governments are yet to provide a compelling reason for online censorship laws other than for common ‘decency’. Where there are clear positive intentions to censorship, it most likely will not change anything: where there is a will there is a way, and extremists will find a way to get their message across.
Even so, there is an estimated six billion hours of footage uploaded on YouTube each month, content goes unseen more often than not, and we click on things we want to see. And remember: not everyone who watches terrorist videos, actually becomes an extremist.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship
[i] https://www.comparitech.com/blog/vpn-privacy/guide-to-online-censorship/
[ii] https://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/2012humanrightsreport/index.htm?year=2012&dlid=204352#wrapper
[iii] https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/78977/coalition_programme_for_government.pdf
Dennis Miralis has acted in some of Australia’s most complex fraud matters involving global financial institutions and has advised multinational banks and corporations on the practice and procedure of investigations focusing on fraud and money laundering. He speaks with Lawyer Monthly on changes occurring in Australia to prevent economic fraud, especially with the rise of Bitcoin.
Have there been any recent regulatory changes or interesting developments in your jurisdiction in white collar crime ?
Australia is experiencing an active period of legislative reform covering white collar crime, which is likely to continue into the next 12-18 months as a number of important pieces of proposed legislation are debated and introduced by the Federal Government.
Broadly speaking, the changes cover a wide spectrum of white collar crime activity and include changes to: foreign bribery laws; the introduction of deferred prosecution agreements; whistleblower protection in the private sector; increased powers of the corporate regulator ASIC to investigate and prosecute breaches of the corporations law; an increase in the available penalties applicable to white collar/corporate crime, and changes to the anti money laundering laws to regulate bitcoin exchanges. Many of these reforms have been on the horizon for some time. The focus of the regulatory and legal changes is to address some of the perceived challenges involved in the detection and prosecution of white collar crimes. These changes therefore will seek to make it easier to allow white collar crimes to be identified, detected and investigated and ultimately successfully prosecuted.
Additionally, in late 2017, the Federal Government announced a Royal Commission into Banks which will be given significant powers to examine alleged bank misconduct in the banking, superannuation and financial services industry. These changes will better align Australia’s domestic laws with international developments that have already taken place across the Europe and in the USA in the past few years.
Can you outline the key fraud and white collar crime trends in Australia?
The key white collar crime and fraud trend appears to be a shift towards an increase in criminal penalties and providing the regulators and law enforcement with more powers to investigate and prosecute white collar crime. This has been accompanied by the recognition of the harm that such offences create to Australia’s economy, and a recognition that the penalties for white collar crime have to date, not adequately reflected the objective seriousness of such offending. We are also likely to continue to see heightened activity by ASIC against banks who may have had failed to properly comply with their obligations to regarding issuing credit and for breaches of Australia’s AML regime along with increased powers in the areas of exchange of information and the ability to freeze assets.
Additionally, the Australian Federal Police are being provided with more resources and training to investigate international fraud matters including bribery of foreign officials. The new proposed bribery laws have been drafted to broaden the offence of bribery of a foreign public official by creating a new strict liability offence for failing to prevent foreign bribery.
The amendments to Australia’s AML laws will ensure that “bitcoin exchanges” will be regulated and will impose reporting and record-keeping obligations on digital currency exchange providers, and require them to enrol and register on the Digital Currency Exchange Register maintained by Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC) and to comply with protocols to identify and mitigate the risks of money laundering and terrorism financing. A Bill to establish an Australian Home Affairs portfolio was introduced into the Australian Parliament on 7 December 2017, which is likely to lead to centralisation of federal agencies working more collaboratively to investigate sophisticated white collar crimes, including those with an international dimension. As Australia’s key intelligence agencies and law enforcement agencies will now come under this new portfolio, there will be a significant increase in the investigative capacities to detect serious international financial crime with an Australian nexus.
The introduction of new whistleblower laws will assist in the identification of white collar crimes and will expand the scope of whistleblower protection beyond the Corporations Act including protections to a broader class of persons, including former employees, contractors and relatives. The legislation will also increase the kinds of disclosures that are protected under the Corporations Act to include disclosures of conduct which constitutes misconduct or an improper state of affairs or circumstances. The combination of all of these changes occurring in parallel demonstrates a paradigm shift that will align Australia with changes seen across the UK and the USA.
What complications or difficulties arise from international cross-border fraud & white collar crime?
From a defence perspective, one of the main complications in the investigation of cross border fraud and white collar crime is the need to acquire a detailed understanding of the laws governing fraud offences, data exchange, extradition, mutual assistance and the right to silence, across multiple jurisdictions, which often can have very different laws covering these areas and sometimes different legal system altogether. The above areas of law will generally play a significant role in how a cross border investigation will be conducted and ultimately, if there is an indictment and a trial, where and how the criminal trial will be undertaken. The focus remains on ensuring that a client’s right to a fair trial(s) is not prejudiced because of any irregularities in the area of data exchange, mutual assistance and potential breaches of fundamental human rights, such as the right to silence, across each jurisdiction where criminal and regulatory exposure exists. Having access to up to date local knowledge concerning which Government lawyers will be taking on the case, profiling the appetite of the particular prosecution team to try and resolve the matter through a negotiated plea/settlement/DPA and making the key forensic decisions very early on about your client’s potential value to the Prosecution are some additional challenges that arise in cross border investigations. It is advisable to work collaboratively with experienced lawyers in all the jurisdictions where your client may be facing criminal and regulatory exposure to navigate some of these challenges.
In an ideal world what would you like to see implemented or changed in the area of international white collar crime?
As the internationalisation of white collar crime continues apace, unprecedented cooperation between regulators and law enforcement bodies will exponentially increase in the areas of tax fraud, cyber fraud, foreign bribery, bitcoin investigations and money laundering. The legal mechanism which will give effect to this cooperation will include mutual assistance, Memorandums Of Understanding, and informal contact between financial regulators and law enforcement with their partner agencies across the globe. These developments are necessary to properly deal with the complexities of a globalised world where the nature of de regulated markets and the fluidity of capital through the internet has eroded the concept of national crime. Often, however, much of what is occurring in this space is not sufficiently subjected to the necessary regulatory and or judicial oversight required. Given that these developments have the capacity to interfere with the protection of fundamental rights I would like to see a clearer framework developed that strikes the right balance between the need for appropriate powers to be provided to Governments and the protection of important rights, such as the right to an a fair trial and the right to silence. More work needs to be done at an international level in the area of harmonisation of data exchange between jurisdictions, determinations concerning where someone will be tried in circumstances where multiple trials are possible and agreements about extradition across states when multiple indictments have been found. I believe these are areas which will ultimately need to be dealt with by the courts if sensible international standards through bilateral or multilateral agreements cannot be implemented.
Dennis Miralis
Partner
Nyman Gibson Miralis
Criminal Defence Lawyers
Level 9, 299 Elizabeth Street, Sydney NSW 2000
PO BOX 21147, World Square NSW 2002
DX 11543 SYDNEY DOWNTOWN
p +61 2 9264 8884 f 9264 9797 m 0414 933 168
Dennis Miralis is a leading Australian criminal defence lawyer and adviser who specialises in complex white collar crime, including national and international criminal investigations and prosecutions, with a focus on money laundering, tax evasion, bribery, corruption, cybercrime and regulatory offences. Dennis has expertise in advising and representing commercial institutions and individuals being investigated by the Australian Federal Police, the Australian Securities Investment Commission, the Australian Transactions Reports and Analysis Centre Financial Reporting Centre, the Australian Tax Office , the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission , the Commonwealth and State Director of Public Prosecutions, as well some of the largest law enforcement and financial regulators world-wide, including the US Department of Justice, the Securities Exchange Commission, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the UK Serious Economic Fraud Unit.
The news that an artificial intelligence (AI) system has been developed that can diagnose scans for heart disease and lung cancer raises clear questions about accountability. Put simply, if a misdiagnosis is made by an AI system, who is to blame: the hospital or the developer of the software?
Michael Carson, Senior Lawyer at Fletchers Solicitors speaks: “Any software system capable of making life-changing recommendations will need to be developed in close collaboration with the end user. The output of the software will be a result of calculations made using parameters the end user has stipulated, not the developer. For instance, it’s been reported that the new AI system will be able to search scans for clumps of cells in the lungs and then advise whether the cells are harmless or potentially cancerous - it can only do this with radiographers and oncologists being heavily involved in the development process.
“Once the AI software is up and running, the developer will insist on the end user essentially signing a contract to say that they are happy the software meets the specifications set out at the beginning of development. This ought to indemnify the developer against any claims for misdiagnosis.
“Interestingly, the Consumer Rights Act [2015] contains information relating to digital content, including software. It provides that a user may seek a remedy if the software a) is not of satisfactory quality b) is not fit for a particular purpose, or c) does not meet the description (or specification). It may well be then that the consumer, i.e. the NHS, could seek to recover damages paid out in a medical negligence claim via this route.
“It seems, therefore, that we should view AI as just another piece of hospital equipment. Any errors or misdiagnosis made by the AI should be dealt with as a medical negligence claim, with the AI merely being a tool used by the hospital.”
Rise of the Robo-Diagnosis
With the rapid progression in medical technology and a greater global reliance on big data, the role of the doctor as sole diagnostician is changing dramatically. Greg McEwen, Partner at BLM, considers what this might mean for our trust in human decisions and the accuracy of diagnoses.
The word ‘diagnosis’ can be defined as “the act of identifying a disease from its signs and symptoms”. As a society, we have traditionally looked to our healthcare professionals to diagnose and treat our ailments, from minor aches and pains to major, life-threatening conditions.
The existence of lawyers who specialise in clinical negligence, from both a claimant and defendant perspective, is a reminder of the industry that has grown up around litigation in this area. In the year 2015-16, the NHS Litigation Authority received nearly 11,000 new claims for clinical negligence and nearly 1,000 referrals about the performance of doctors, dentists and pharmacists. Of course, not all claims relate to diagnostic error. Likewise, not every error in diagnosis results in a claim. Nor should it, since the mere fact of an incorrect diagnosis does not equate to negligence. But could advances in technology lead to earlier or more accurate diagnoses?
Technology has long played a part in the diagnostic process. From cancer screening to MRI scanning, to optometry, computers have been employed with a view to informing and improving key decision making. The caveat to this is that the technology is operated and, most importantly, interpreted and acted upon by people exercising judgment. Diagnosis remains an art as much as a science but that has not stopped the onward march of technology, with AI and big data seeking to chip away at the role of diagnostician and decision maker. Whether it’s through a wearable consumer device such as a Fitbit, or AI trained to identify potentially cancerous tumours, the average patient today is exposed to technology that can monitor heart rate, nutritional intake and sleep patterns, all the way up to identifying serious, life-threatening conditions.
Some of this technology has the potential to reduce or replace human input, but will it lead to better outcomes? There certainly seems to be a belief that it will amongst some major stakeholders, both healthcare providers and technology companies alike. IBM’s Watson supercomputer is currently being used in the US to help produce tailored treatment plans for cancer patients. Here in the UK, Babylon Health is reported to have secured £50m to further develop its AI diagnostic tool, itself a development on its existing clinical triage app, trialled in the NHS.
Are we hurtling head first into futuristic healthcare, then? Does this threaten the role of doctor as sole diagnostician? And what happens if AI gets it wrong?
The obvious concern over AI diagnoses centres around the issue of liability for errors. Where would medical and legal responsibility fall if a patient incorrectly receives the all-clear on the basis of an AI algorithm? It seems unlikely that this technology will be used to diagnose patients in isolation for various reasons, not least that the lines of clinical responsibility and legal liability need to remain clear. Patients need to know who is ultimately responsible for their medical treatment and who they can look to for redress in the event that something goes wrong. Therefore, we assume that primary responsibility is likely to remain with the healthcare provide.
Yet whether healthcare professionals will be able to measure the accuracy and reliability of AI-output remains uncertain, given the complexity of the software and the protection of proprietary information. For insurers and healthcare organisations, this step into the unknown opens up the important issue around digital malpractice, lengthening the chain of responsibility to manufacturers and software developers. Increasingly, we have to consider whether mishaps and mistakes fall into the category of negligence, product liability or both, particularly as we move through a period in which doctors increasingly work in tandem with AI and big data.
There’s cause for optimism as well. AI also brings great opportunity. People are not machines and human error is as much a possibility in healthcare as any walk of life. The number of known diseases in humans has been put at anywhere between 10,000 and 30,000 depending on the criteria employed. Some estimates have suggested that as any as one in six diagnoses within the NHS turn out to be incorrect. Using AI as an assistive tool has the potential to improve accuracy and reduce diagnostic errors, within an increasingly stretched Health Service. The use of AI to detect heart disease, for example, has been estimated to save the NHS over £300 million a year.
There is however a flip side when comparing machines with their human counterparts. Diagnoses and treatment plans are not simply a matter of logic and deduction. They affect real people. The fact that a computer aided cancer diagnosis is accurate doesn’t make it any less devastating for the recipient. Machines cannot empathise. There will always be a need for healthcare professionals in the diagnostic process, however advanced the technology becomes.
What we can say is that the risks are broadening along with the benefits, for all involved in the delivery of healthcare in the digital age. As technology increasingly plays a part in the diagnostic process, we’re likely to see a host of new issues arising around the attribution of liability, arguably the price of progress.
Greg McEwen
Partner, BLM
www.blmlaw.com
About BLM
Getting a pay rise usually comes hand in hand with hard work, effort and time put into your job. But could it potentially be much simpler than that? On the other hand, moving to another firm may be an option.
On the rise
Pay rises are never far from the minds of the UK workforce. We all want to be paid what we feel we’re worth, but there are so many factors seemingly out of our control. Daily news articles that talk about gender pay gaps, fat cat bonuses and collapsing corporations are rife, leading us to believe that there’s not much we can do about our salaries.
There is, however, a way to put yourself in the best position possible. It just takes a little bit of research and preparation.
If money talks, why don’t we talk about it?
Discussing pay and personal finances is often considered a taboo, but if we’re not talking about it, how can we be expected to know our worth in the industry we’re in and how and when to ask for a pay rise? Money comparison website Money Guru recently carried out survey of 1,500 British workers. Away from the dominating headlines we’ve all come to expect, it looked at how the great pay rise debate really plays out at ground level.
Work hard and prosper
40% of those surveyed don’t believe that performance is the main factor in a pay rise, even though being able to work hard and be suitably rewarded for your efforts is what most of us assume is a fair and honest system. It seems that the pay disparities we know to exist are ones we believe are out of our control.
Get flirty, not shirty
In the Great British Pay Rise Survey, men were found to be three times more likely to have flirted with their boss for a pay rise, with 40% admitting to doing so. Compare this with a paltry 20% of women using flirtation as a tactic and we can see, if it works, why men sometimes get ahead where women don’t. The survey highlighted female confidence as being disappointingly low. 40% of men believed that asking for a pay rise made them look ambitious, while only 25% of women thought the same.
‘Shy bairns get nowt’
35% of women surveyed believe asking for a pay rise makes them ‘pushy’, compared to just 19% of men. Perhaps the phrase, “shy bairns get nowt” rings true here. You could also argue though, that people negotiate better when they feel they have power. If your skills are in high demand and not easily found elsewhere, then you have more power. It’s unrealistic to suggest that, for example, a teenager in a minimum wage, hourly rate job could negotiate a pay rise when their role could be replaced within a day. Perhaps this is partly why 40% of Brits don’t believe performance is the main key to a pay rise.
Company culture
In many industries today, company profits are at a high, yet wage growth is flat. If regular pay increases or pay reviews aren’t part of the company culture, then it can be difficult to know where you stand, legally and professionally, when asking for a pay rise. Nurturing staff and making them feel valued and appreciated fosters loyalty and motivation. Encouraging the progression of staff through their skillset and financially is part of that nurturing, so when you look at it that way, why would a business not want to encourage salary progression?
When do you dump your employer?
With Valentine’s Day past, your key relationships have been under scrutiny. A bad coupling with a manager who doesn’t respect you or value you can be enough to make you call time on your working relationship. Before making such a big decision however, there are some key things to consider and it’s not only about pay.
Do you have their ear?
Big organisations often fall foul of knowing what their staff want, need and value. Unreachable targets, inflexible working hours and clashing of personalities can create an unpleasant office culture. In this situation it can be difficult to voice your opinion and make yourself heard. It’s also important to feel that they trust you. When plans change and goalposts shift, a lack of communication of these things can cause confusion and distrust with staff feeling like they don’t matter.
Variety is the spice of life
Boredom is a killer. The same routine, day in, day out, leaves you feeling like you’re stuck in Groundhog Day. If there’s no opportunity to change your role, such as taking on a new client, additional responsibilities or skills training, then the future will look bleak.
If you’re ready to move on in your career, simply updating your CV can give you a great idea of where your skills and experience lie. It will also highlight any gaps in your knowledge. From there, you can work out your goals and decide whether staying put or changing your job is the best way to go. Find out more about the Great British Pay Rise.
Responding to the recent announcement of a new Advocates’ Graduated Fee Scheme (AGFS) the Chair of the Bar, Andrew Walker QC, had this to say: “For years, our system of criminal justice has suffered from a remorseless succession of cuts in funding, and wholly inadequate investment. This has included huge cuts in the fixed fees payable to those defence barristers who carry out publicly-funded work in the Crown Court under the Advocates’ Graduated Fee Scheme (AGFS); cuts that, proportionately, have far exceeded those imposed on public service providers in any other sector. These are the very same barristers who are working tirelessly under an ever-increasing workload for those very same fees. Without their commitment, and their continued goodwill, the system would simply cease to function.
“The result is that there are now real and pressing concerns about the viability and sustainability of practice for many at the Criminal Bar, and about whether the Bar will be able to continue to recruit and retain the practitioners needed to do this vital work for the future.
“But not only have the cuts been dramatic, they were done in such a way that they produced a scheme whose very structure was a further barrier to a sustainable future. With the aim of addressing this, the Ministry of Justice have now announced the final form of a revised AGFS, framed by reference to a Government-imposed restriction of ‘cost-neutrality’.
“We cannot ignore the unpalatable fact that the changes being made do not truly involve an increase in the money being committed to the scheme, even though several of the rates payable will be higher than originally proposed; and while we are not surprised by this, we cannot disguise our disappointment. We still have a system of payment for the vast majority of criminal defence work in the Crown Court that undervalues the skills of the Criminal Bar and their crucial role in the Crown Court and above in maintaining the rule of law and in making the administration of justice a reality.
“Nevertheless, the changes that have been made represent an important step in the right direction for the long term future of the Criminal Bar, by seeking to address the barrier created by the distorted structure that repeated cuts had produced. A great deal of time and effort was invested into this on all sides to try to re-design the structure of the scheme so as to reinstate more consistency and rationality, and to make it more sustainable, within the constraint of Government-imposed cost-neutrality. On the Bar’s side, many barristers at all levels of seniority committed an enormous amount of own their time and effort, and they did so because of their belief in the future of the Criminal Bar, and with a real desire to try to achieve those aims.
“The original proposal by the Ministry of Justice accepted many of the points raised by the Bar in this regard, but it still fell short in several respects. It is reassuring to see a number of the shortcomings addressed in the final scheme, even if the gains at an individual level are modest. It is right that the focus of these adjustments has been on those starting out or still in their first few years of practice, although they are not the only beneficiaries of the changes. The Bar will also be reassured by the Ministry’s firm commitment to a review after 18-24 months.
“With a renewed structure in place, the Bar Council will continue to press for the index-linking of fee rates, and we note the Ministry’s promise to keep this under review. We shall hold them to that promise, and they can expect to hear much more from us in this regard.
“The Bar Council will continue to argue the Bar’s case for proper funding of the criminal justice system in all respects (including the provision of legal aid), not least so as to ensure that we can develop and preserve the quality of advocacy in our justice system.”
(Source: The Bar Council)
The new German governing coalition (CDU, CSU, and SPD) is planning legislation to make online marketplaces potentially liable for any unpaid VAT of merchants operating on their websites. If the marketplace is shown that they failed to prevent ‘dishonest’ merchants, they would be held liable for unpaid VAT.
The UK has already implemented similar laws. The Council of Europe adopted measures to make e-marketplaces jointly and severally liable for missing VAT from third countries (non-EU resident). This would come into place in January 2021 or sooner.
Richard Asquith, VP Indirect Tax at Avalara had this to say fort Lawyer Monthly:
“Germany is looking to replicate the UK’s recent success at bringing thousands of Chinese online merchants into the tax net for the first time.
The marketplaces have introduced many controls already, such as VAT number checks. But this steps up the pressure on them for more due diligence on unusual pricing.”
(Source: Alavara)
Cryptocurrency regulation is necessary, on its way, and the vital work being done by many international financial watchdogs and lawmakers must be championed.
The comments from Nigel Green, the founder and CEO of deVere Group, come on the day the UK’s Treasury Committee launches an inquiry into cryptocurrencies to investigate their benefits and risks and to assess how the new technology could be regulated.
In the last few days, South Korea's Finance Supervisory Service (FSS) has signalled the government's co-operation in plans for self-regulation; the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA) has announced it is to treat some cryptocurrency offerings as securities; the Securities and Exchange Commission of Zambia has issued a public notice on cryptocurrencies; and Spain is reportedly drafting legislation that will help attract cryptocurrency and blockchain companies to the country.
Mr Green observes: “Governments and financial regulators around the world are increasingly focusing their attention on cryptocurrencies. Their vital work to warn investors of potential risks, to crackdown on criminal activity, and to potentially establish regulations must be championed.
“Since the launch of Bitcoin in 2009, digital currencies have been operating in a regulatory vacuum. However, I hope and believe that this is soon to change as international financial watchdogs respond to the growing interest in, and popularity of, cryptocurrencies.
“To my mind, there is no question that regulation is necessary and is on its way. It is clearly an area in which there is an enormous need for a robust international regulatory framework and strict ongoing supervision.”
He continues: “One of the best ways to address the regulatory issues is via the exchanges.
“Nearly all foreign exchange transactions go through banks or currency houses and this is what needs to happen with cryptocurrencies. When flows run through regulated exchanges, it will be much easier to tackle potential wrongdoing, such as money laundering, and make sure tax is paid.
“For this to happen, banks will need to open accounts for exchanges, which is why they must be regulated.”
The deVere CEO concludes: “Robust regulation that is devised, implemented and enforced by international financial regulators will mean further protection for the growing number of people using cryptocurrencies, the less likely it will be that criminals will use these digital payment methods, the less potential risk there will be for the disruption of global financial stability, and the more potential opportunities there will be for higher economic growth and activity in those countries which introduce it.”
(Source: deVere Group)
The latest immigration statistics released showing a record drop in EU net migration highlight a continuing trend of EU nationals choosing to leave or not relocate to the UK for a more certain future elsewhere, says Sophie Barrett-Brown, Head of the UK Practice at specialist immigration lawyers Laura Devine Solicitors.
Barrett-Brown notes today’s figures, which reveal that the number of EU citizens coming to the UK (220,000) decreased by 47,000 over the last year and is now at a level comparable with 2014. The number leaving the UK (130,000) is the highest recorded level since 2008.
As a result, EU net migration has now returned to the level last seen in 2012. These figures reflect the destabilising uncertainty facing both skilled workers and British employers – particularly as they come just a fortnight after the government said its white paper outlining the post-Brexit immigration models (originally proposed for publication in Autumn 2017) will not be published until a transition deal is agreed.
Sophie Barrett-Brown, Head of the UK Practice at specialist immigration lawyers Laura Devine Solicitors, says: “A further fall in net migration may seem to be good news for those with concerns about immigration, but in reality it underlines a growing skills shortage impacting on businesses and public services. Behind every official statistic showing more workers leaving the UK and fewer arriving, the real story is vacancies unfilled and business potential unrealised. Skilled EU nationals choosing to pursue opportunities outside the UK is not a success story for the UK.
“The biggest concern is the ongoing uncertainty employers face as the Brexit deadline of March 2019 approaches. With government now not due to publish proposals for the post-Brexit migration system until the end of 2018, employers are having to plan for any scenario and a number of businesses have already begun transferring some of their business functions overseas. While this may prove to be unnecessary once the new rules are known, businesses cannot hang around and wait, they have to plan now for the next several years.
“The reduction of EU migrants willing to accept roles in the UK coupled with the Tier 2 cap for employer-sponsored non-EU workers being reached – an event which prior to December 2017 had only occurred once, in June 2015 – employers are under significant pressure to fill their vacancies – with the NHS unable to recruit doctors from overseas to a number of posts. Without substantial innovation in the migration system – particularly to ensure that any new system for EU migrant labour is more adaptive and less restrictive than the current non-EU workers system – then many UK employers may find they are unable to fulfil their business plans.”
(Source: Laura Devine Solicitors)
Law firms Tomasik Kotin Kasserman in Chicago and Taylor & Ring in Los Angeles recently filed suit against the elite, private Montessori School of Lake Forest (Illinois) and its former teacher Celina Montoya for the sexual abuse of a young male student.
The complaint states that Montoya began "grooming" the boy, identified as John Doe, for a sexual relationship when he was 13 years old and entering 8th grade, manipulating his emotions and taking advantage of him, so she could ultimately engage in a sexual relationship with him. As the relationship escalated, over the course of several years, Montoya began sending sexually explicit text messages to John, including nude photos, as well as hugging and kissing him on school campus during and after school hours. The school failed to have an on-site administrator monitoring the campus at all times. Further, Montoya knew John was suicidal, yet failed to report it to the administration or his parents.
"Montessori School of Lake Forest holds itself as a top-notch private school with the best teachers, the safest environment and a high student-to-teacher ratio that makes it ideal for learning," said Taylor & Ring partner and co-counsel Dave Ring, who is a staunch advocate of protecting children in schools. "Yet, during John's time as a student, it's clear that supervision fell well below the standard of care, allowing Montoya to sexually abuse John for many years."
"There were ample warning signs that Montoya had an inappropriate relationship with John," added co-counsel Dan Kotin, a partner at Tomasik Kotin Kasserman in Chicago. "The school has a duty to protect their students, and Montoya's behaviour went unchecked for years, which is a blatant disregard for the victim's well-being."
In January 2016, Montoya was convicted and sentenced to four years in state prison for her criminal misconduct towards John.
Case Background
During the 2011-2012 school year, Montoya was an instructor at the Montessori School of Lake Forest, Blue House campus, when John entered the 8th grade. During this time, Montoya engaged in inappropriate conversations with John on campus, including telling him that they would get married one day and that she loved him, as well as regularly kissing and hugging John. Montoya was also constantly sending John sexually inappropriate text messages.
The Montessori School of Lake Forest was required to have a full-time, on-site administrator whenever a student or teacher were present; however, the school failed to provide adequate supervision, which Montoya exploited. Despite ample signs of the inappropriate relationship, no action was taken.
During the Spring of 2013, concerns about Montoya's relationship with John were brought to the school's attention. Shortly afterwards, Montoya confessed that the student had confided to her that he was depressed and suicidal and that she purposely did not report it. Rather than immediately dismiss Montoya from her position at the school, administrators allowed her to finish out the school year, where she continued her relationship with John. John finally told his parents about the abuse perpetrated by Montoya, and as a result, an investigation was launched, leading to Montoya's arrest and prosecution. In January 2016, Montoya was convicted and sentenced to four years in state prison for her criminal misconduct towards the student.
This civil suit seeks compensation for John Doe for the abuse he suffered as a result of Montoya's conduct and the school's negligence.
(Source: Tomasik Kotin Kasserman, LLC)
