Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
The government would say it’s ‘not’, but ask any family practitioner undertaking publicly funded work and you will get a very different response. This is what Shiva Ancliffe, a specialist family law practitioner at Coram Chambers, believes, as she provides the Bar Council with her own personal opinions on justice in the UK family system.
After all, we are the ones at the coal face observing daily the appalling consequences of the family legal aid cuts. It is not over stating it to say that there is a crisis of staggering proportion evident in the family justice system brought on by the introduction of LASPO in 2013.
I have watched good parents give up the fight to gain contact with their child and walk away in despair because they can’t manage the process without legal assistance. Many times, this will be a severance of a relationship forever.
On the other extreme, unrepresented violent abusers seeking contact are left to cross examine victims of their abuse directly, and without the legal representation to which they are entitled.
We stand by helplessly and watch as people with learning difficulties, mental health problems, those that can’t read or don’t speak English, those with disabilities such as hearing impairment are left to represent themselves. They are completely ill-equipped.
The only reason the system has not yet collapsed is the dedication of the family judiciary and those that are committed to publicly funded work at the Bar, and amongst them, Solicitors working increasingly on a pro bono basis with an ever-growing reliance on free legal advice centres and charities to bridge the gap.
One such organisation, the Personal Support Unit (PSU), reports that in 2017-18, they helped litigants in person (LIPs) on over 65,000 occasions across England and Wales. Since 2013 (after the introduction of LASPO) the work of the PSU has increased five-fold. These volunteers are not lawyers and while they do an admirable job, they are not there to argue the case but to sign post, help fill in court forms and assist desperate parents formulate what they want to say in court.
A senior family judge, HH Stephen Wildblood QC recently spoke to the BBC about the growing issue of LIPs in the family justice system.
He said: “Whether the overall process is fair, that people are coming to court on their own is not really for me to say, that is for others to judge…If anyone watching this can imagine themselves in court faced with somebody that they once loved on the other side of the court, supported by a barrister, and they are on their own, then I think the point answers itself. It is very difficult indeed for them.” He stressed the challenges faced by litigants in person coming into a courtroom full of barristers, experts and other professionals, particularly if they do not speak English as a first language.
Expressing himself with a mixture of compassion and caution, he has highlighted the growing angst of those working in this area.
The Ministry of Justice has replied that an additional £6.5m has been spent since 2015 on increasing the support available to those who represent themselves in court. What a wholly inadequate response. This is the equivalent of ‘rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.’
Change must follow. This pernicious piece of legislation must be amended to allow faith in the family justice system to be restored.
Shiva Ancliffe, Coram Chambers
Shiva is a specialist family law practitioner and has extensive experience in all aspects of the law relating to children. She has particular expertise in acting for vulnerable children and parents in public law proceedings, and is regularly instructed in highly complex cases involving factitious illness by proxy, non-accidental injury and sexual abuse.
Shiva also undertakes private law case work and is instructed on matters of complexity such as adoption, forced marriage, and child abduction. Many of her cases have an international element such as leave to remove from the jurisdiction and both Hague and non-Hague conventions.
Shiva is a qualified children’s arbitrator, a member of the ALC, FLBA and sits on the Bar Council remuneration subcommittee. She is also a former trustee of her local branch of women’s aid. In 2018, Shiva was ranked as a leading family barrister in the UK Bar by Chambers and Partners.
What are the possible tax reporting issues that crop up with Smart Contracts? Below, Jimmy Royer, Principal and Alan G. White, Managing Principal, at Analysis Group, Inc., conclude that the SEC and IRS will need to develop different monitoring approaches, frameworks and guidance for private blockchain systems that will most likely be used.
As new transaction payment methods enabled by digital technology – such as smart contracts – become more pervasive, they raise complex taxation issues. These include considerations of what type of tax is relevant, and in what tax jurisdiction any given tax must be paid.
What are smart contracts?
Smart contracts are decentralized, anonymized, blockchain-coded agreements that facilitate the exchange of cryptocurrencies (e.g., Bitcoins) or tokens (e.g., Ethers) for goods or services. When the preprogrammed terms and conditions of an agreement are met, the smart contract executes automatically, enabling the exchange of the payment for a given good or service. A single smart contract could have thousands of anonymous transactions associated with it.[i] As a result, smart contracts can be difficult and costly for tax authorities to trace and follow.
Smart contracts raise some complex taxation issues. The underlying transaction in which the cryptocurrency is exchanged for goods or services may result in taxation at different levels: 1) Profits (or losses) made on the cryptocurrencies' change in value; 2) income generated by fees associated with the transaction; and 3) sales tax on the goods or services sold.
Issue 1: Taxing changes in the value of the underlying cryptocurrencies
Smart contracts can be connected to various decentralized exchanges (DEXs) to automatically perform preprogrammed trades of cryptocurrencies or tokens. This could include arbitrage of cryptocurrency-pairs across DEXs. If there are gains made on the cryptocurrencies' change in value, it could be considered a profit (or loss) by tax authorities and subject to tax. This tax could be at the state or federal level, or may also involve a number of international tax authorities.
Issue 2: Taxing smart contract administrative fees
Each time a smart contract triggers a transaction, a fee is associated with that transaction. Since the administrative fees for smart contracts are paid in cryptocurrencies, there may be income tax implications. The recipient of the fee associated with the transaction, oftentimes cryptocurrency miners, may need to report this income. Once again, there may be state or federal tax implications. To the extent that the transactions may span international markets, they may raise transfer pricing considerations and the possibility of income-reporting requirements to multiple international tax authorities.
Issue 3: Taxing the sale of products or services
Companies and individuals can use smart contracts to exchange goods and services, which may be subject to sales tax. For instance, two parties could enter into a smart contract where the buyer agrees to pay X Ethers in exchange for Good Y from the seller. Once Good Y is delivered (and verified by the network), X Ethers are automatically sent to the seller.
In a more traditional business setting, a bank or credit card company would likely be involved in the transaction, making it more straightforward for tax authorities to monitor. However, because the blockchain exchange happens automatically and anonymously, tax authorities may have to rely solely on the seller to collect and report sales tax on the transaction.
Regulation of smart contracts: weighing the costs and benefits
Currently, there appears to be no easy way for tax authorities, such as the IRS, to monitor and tax these blockchain transactions. Developing an overly burdensome framework to appropriately document and collect taxes on transactions related to smart contracts could potentially increase their monitoring costs and decrease their usefulness.
Tax authorities will need to balance the costs of monitoring/auditing blockchain transactions in a manner that does not impede the characteristic convenience and low intermediary cost associated with these innovative ways of performing contractual agreements.
[i] “Blockchain technology and its potential in taxes,” Deloitte, December 2017. Available at: https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/pl/Documents/Reports/pl_Blockchain-technology-and-its-potential-in-taxes-2017-EN.PDF
The collapse of Universal Wealth Management last week has caused a stir among the general public but for those working within the legal profession it was more a question of when, not if, the firm would fold. Elizabeth Young, partner at Roythornes Solicitors, shares the lessons to be learnt from the scandal.
Universal Wealth Management has been operating for some time now and targets specific geographical areas inviting locals to seminars which focus on asset protection.
In principal there is nothing wrong with this tactic, however, their seminars sell asset protection schemes such as how to protect your house if you end up in a care home which are in many cases inappropriate, and result in families losing more than they protect.
The very nature of the ‘product’ tends to attract trusting, vulnerable, older people and it’s this specific aspect I take issue with, especially since most people never end up in care. In fact, approximately a mere 4% of the population aged above 65 years live in care homes, with this number rising to 16% for those aged over 85.
We are often approached by clients who are concerned and want to protect their assets, particularly their homes, in case they need to move in to residential care. Roythornes offer a balanced approach to such questions and consider all the pros and cons. In many cases it is simply not needed, but where it is a serious possibility, there are far gentler ways of protecting assets without going to the huge expense or process proposed by Universal Wealth.
There are therefore a few key pieces of advice I would give to not only the victims of the collapse but also to anyone who finds themselves in a situation which seems too good to be true.
1. Speak to someone you trust
If you are concerned about these issues then go to a source you can trust. Ask friends and family to recommend you to an adviser who is well known, and widely regarded in your area. Two heads are better than one and they may be able to recommend solutions to the problem or a place to get impartial advice. I would recommend starting with free resources such as Solicitors for the Elderly, Age UK or the Law Society but also seek legal advice if you’re particularly concerned.
2. Do your research
Before trusting anyone with your assets, do some research and make sure they have a proven track record of delivering a quality service. By doing your due diligence and researching whether they are regulated, what their reputation is like, who runs the company and what qualifications they have, you can quite quickly form an opinion.
If more people had researched Universal Wealth Management before handing over their assets they would have realised that the managing director had been suspended from STEP – the global professional association for family inheritance and succession planning practitioners – last year. A telling sign regarding the practices of the business.
3. Check in with your elderly friends and family
Most people are now aware of scams that come in the post or over the phone but it’s always worth watching out for the older members of your family or elderly friends to check they aren’t being lured into a deal, that is quite frankly, too good to be true.
Schemes, such as the seminars promoted by Universal Wealth Management using headlines such as ‘45,000 families every year are forced to sell their homes to pay for their care’, target the more vulnerable members of our society so keeping a watching eye over them is no bad thing.
My take home message is that if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is and if it isn’t, you’ve at least done your checks and won’t fall foul to bad or immoral practices.
Below Wendy Gouldingay, Director at Gouldingays's Family Law & Mediation, provides her insight into the departure of longstanding President of the High Court’s Family Division, Sir James Munby.
In a time of unprecedented uncertainty and huge shifts in society, passionate, resolute leaders driving positive change for the good of families across the country are more important than ever. The retirement of the outspoken Sir James Munby this year starkly highlights this, and as a family law professional and fellow advocate for humanity sitting at the heart of the legal system, I know I’m not alone in saying that he will be missed.
Throughout Sir James’ five years’ as president, he has been a refreshing force for good. From championing the vision of a family law system built around the welfare of children and families to highlighting the failings of the government, the care system and problematic practices in the courtroom, he has been an unwavering voice for reform.
He has been at the forefront of advocating transparency in the family court system and has spoken openly and frankly about the “inhumanity” of splitting up elderly couples moving into care homes. Cuts to legal aid also sat at the top of his agenda, directly challenging the government in the face of a family court system at breaking point.
Sir James recently spoke at the 6th annual ‘Voice of the child’ conference to urge the Family Justice Young People’s Board (FJYPB) to continue the fight to improve our family justice system, addressing the government’s failure to introduce legislation to stop the cross-examination of abuse victims as one of the key ‘deeply depressing’ setbacks that are halting the progress of a more aspirational justice system.
Right until the end of his tenure, Sir James faced intense media scrutiny but despite this, he has done a terrific job of raising public awareness of the current state of our legal system. A firm view of the right way to treat fellow human beings has been the cornerstone of his outspoken professional views and over the years, through snippets in the papers, His well known reports to practitioners of his ‘Views from the President’s Chair’ and in his judgements, we have seen this more times that I can count.
After all, if those at the top of the tree of Justice won’t speak out against injustice then who will?
I think I can say with certainty that Sir James Munby’s passion for welfare and humanity will continue to shape family justice reform in the years to come. Looking to the future, we welcome Sir Andrew McFarlane as the newly appointed President of the Family Division.
Although reform is a long and slow process, the future of the system is bright and welfare-focused thanks to Sir James’ passionate leadership.
Journalist Jamal Khashoggi was killed in a fight in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, the country's state TV reports, quoting an initial inquiry.
Volkswagen are again facing the consequences of being dishonest in their diesel emissions tests.
The car manufacturer revealed earlier this week that they have been hit with an additional fine of €926 million at the hands of German prosecutors. The new fine is due to their Audi subsidiary also falsifying diesel emission figures, taking the total cost to the Volkswagen Group to a figure near €33bn (which includes payment to authorities, retrofitting vehicles and compensation).
The fine of €800 million includes a fee of €5 million, the highest amount German law can take for administrative offences.
While the fine concludes this particular prosecution, it has been revealed that there is also a probe into numerous executives, including the former Audi CEO Rupert Stadler.
The car manufacturer is also facing several more legal battles related to the emissions scandal, including a case brought by former shareholders seeking over $10 billion in damages, owing to claims of being misled.
The company’s woes began back in 2015 when the Volkswagen Group admitted to using software tricks to make their vehicles appear cleaner in emissions tests.
Volkswagen have waived their right to appeal but admitted their bottom line will be hit. In a statement released by the company, it was said, “As a negative special item, [it will] reduce the group earnings for fiscal year 2018 accordingly".
The scandal, which often dubbed ‘DieselGate’, affected five million cars sold in both Europe and the United States. Although it affected a range of vehicles made by the group, it was particularly present in V6 and V8 diesel engines installed in both Audi, Volkswagen and Porsche cars.
Volkswagen look set to continue counting the cost of the diesel scandal, with stocks currently down 11% this year, and more time in courts on the horizon.
As more people rely on their phones and the Internet to get legal help after accidents and injuries, it's more important than ever to stay up on the latest digital marketing trends. However, as Tom Desmond, Co-Founder of ApricotLaw, explains below, some of these practices can hurt your law firm’s image and leave you with fewer leads.
Some firms are engaging in a practice called "geofencing," which has been compared to so-called "digital ambulance chasing." This practice may seem like a great way to utilize new technology to up your digital marketing game, but make sure you’re seeking leads the right way. Practices like geofencing are often considered ethically murky and, in the long run, can hurt more than they help.
Geofencing is not a new practice, but it's one that some personal injury law firms have recently tried in order to reach out to injury victims. This practice makes a digital "fence" around an area, so those who enter the fence see ads for that business or firm when they’re online.
You might have noticed, for example, that you're more likely to see ads for a certain store once you've visited that store with your smartphone in hand. The same concept can be applied to other locations. In some cases, law firm marketing companies are trying to help their clients by placing these digital fences around emergency rooms and hospitals.
So, if you broke your arm and are now waiting in the ER for help, you might see ads for a local personal injury attorney. Unfortunately, this works better in theory than in practice.
While geofencing is an effective tool to spread your law firm's name through online ads, that's not always a good thing. Unfortunately, many accident victims have felt uncomfortable or upset about these targeted ads. To some, geofencing is an invasion of privacy.
While geofencing doesn't technically violate HIPAA guidelines, many potential clients have complained about these practices. They see it as a way to take advantage of those who have been injured in an accident, and because of that, they might choose not to work with the firms that engage in this practice.
In some states, people are filing claims to prevent this practice. Some areas have outlawed geofencing around hospitals and other areas where injury victims might be. So, if geofencing isn't an option, what's the best way to get leads online and reach out to those who need a lawyer?
When you're seeking potential clients, you want them to feel that their best interests are your top priority, and geofencing doesn't give them that peace of mind. Instead, you'll need to use other tactics that will draw the right kind of attention to your firm online.
You want to make your law firm as visible as possible online, and you can do that through a long-term SEO strategy. You'll need to localize your content, for example, so people in your area can find your site easily. You’ll need high-quality backlinks from a variety of sources. You’ll need to be visible in Google Maps. These are just a few of the considerations of a healthy, ethical, long-term SEO strategy.
You want to be the first firm clients see when they decide to search for an attorney online; you don’t want to shove your services in their faces when they’re trying to recover from the pain and shock of an injury.
If you are going to begin renting out one of your properties, then landlord and tenant law should be revised and well learnt before going into it. This post will inform you of your rights when it comes to entering your own property, if it is being rented out, and the steps which you can take if you feel your tenants are becoming unreasonable.
Landlord and Tenant Rights: Entering Without Permission
Once the contracts have been signed and the tenancy agreement has gone through, the landlord has essentially provided the new tenant with exclusive possession to the property. This means that it is up to the tenant to decide who enters the property and it is completely within their own rights to deny anyone entry to the property. Access without permission could be the start of any legal action.
However, the original contracts should state that landlords should be able to enter the property if they feel there is a compulsive need and/or there are any repairs that need to be carried out.
With regards to repairs at the property, there are two statutory rights of access:
Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 - This section states that if 24 hours or more is provided, then landlords have the right to enter the property to carry out both repairs and repair instructions.
Housing Act 1988 - This section states that all tenants must give ‘reasonable facilities’ for repairs to be carried out.
If a landlord decides to enter the property without permission and forces entry, then the tenants will be within their rights to make a claim against the landlord for harassment under the Eviction Act 1977. Permission must be given in writing if the visit is for an extended period of time and the only exception to the law is an emergency crisis, such as a fire or flooding.
Does Unreasonable Behaviour Provide an Exception?
Anti-social and unreasonable behaviour will not provide an exception to the above sections of law, although, a landlord can request a court order if they feel the tenants are being unreasonable. The court order, if accepted and they believe the tenant has been unruly, will provide access to the property or eviction.
Unreasonable behaviour is a term that covers a lot of areas. Some of these include:
Eviction Laws and Notice to Vacate
If a landlord has threatened legal action and the tenants are ignoring it, then the next step would be to apply for an injunction to gain access to the property.
However, a more common option would be to serve a Section 21. This will repossess the property and is available if the landlord has a written an assured shorthold tenancy or statutory period tenancy agreement, and the deposit has been put in a protection scheme.
A Section 21 will give the tenant 2-months’ notice, minimum, to leave the property although this is not applicable for fixed-term tenants, as they can only be evicted at the end of their tenancy.
They can only be evicted prior to the end of the fixed-term because of reasons such as:
Once the contract has ended, landlords do not need to give a reason to evict a tenant, although they will need the provide the correct amount of notice.
Free movement of EU workers has been the cornerstone of UK-EU relations for many years. Below Lawyer Monthly hears from Rahul Batra at Hudson McKenzie on the potential future of low skilled worker in a post-Brexit world.
Several hundred thousand low-skilled workers from EU countries are employed each year in jobs predominantly in cleaning, hospitality and the agricultural sector which has historically witnessed a strong reliance on seasonal workers from EU countries. For example, the seasonal agricultural workers scheme (SAWS) was in place for a very long time prior to ending in the year 2013, mainly due to the fact that EU workers were already allowed to come to the UK under free movement.
However, to throw a spanner in the works, the UK government has announced that in line with Brexit, free movement of EU workers will come to an end in the year 2021. This raises two important questions- How are UK businesses engaged in the above sectors going to survive by not having easy access to EU workers? And will there be a replacement scheme in effect?
In order to facilitate migration into jobs that are not considered sufficiently skilled to qualify for Tier 2 work permits, the government may be looking at the below two options.
Youth Mobility Scheme (YMS)
In the July 2018 White Paper, the government stated that it hopes to negotiate a UK-EU ‘Youth Mobility’ scheme modelled on the existing Tier 5 scheme that would allow some sort of low-skilled work permits to be introduced post Brexit. Tier 5 YMS is a scheme which at present allows citizens of few common wealth countries including Australia, New Zealand, Canada to be employed in jobs at any skill level.
Is Youth Mobility Scheme the answer?
The Youth Mobility Scheme has been historically designed to facilitate cultural exchange between the UK and certain common wealth countries, and not as a labour migration programme. By its very nature, this scheme is temporary while a majority of EU workers would stay for more than two years, and often remain with the same employer for many years. Moreover, YMS has an age restriction of between 18-30 years and not all EU workers would fit into this age bracket, although the hospitality industry relies heavily on young workers, but others may not. Finally, the YMS has caps for each participating country and the size of any caps would be important in determining whether YMS is a major source of labour migration in the future.
Work Permits for low-skilled jobs
Work permits by their very nature, involve relatively detailed regulation of the types of jobs that are eligible and the conditions of work and also require employer sponsorship linking workers to specific jobs. The Points Based System (PBS) which has five tiers, hasn’t been used completely since inception. The current Tier 2 visa system for non-EU nationals is designed mainly for graduate level jobs. Most employee jobs in the UK labour market do not meet this criterion, and a substantial share of migration into these non-graduate positions has been from EU countries. The Tier 3 of the PBS, which was original designed to accommodate low skilled workers was never put to use. Therefore, this may be a perfect opportunity for the government to introduce work permits arrangements for low skilled workers under Tier 3 scheme.
However, work permits are not devoid of drawbacks. Firstly, several employers view sponsorship as a cumbersome burden due to the high costs and administrative burden involved. Moreover, the fact that a worker is tied to a specific job, makes it harder for workers to leave exploitative employers in cases where the terms of participation in the scheme have not been successfully enforced.
Conclusion
Are we therefore going to have a Youth Mobility Scheme for EU workers or a new work permit scheme under Tier 3 of the PBS post Brexit, in order to meet the demand for migrant workers in low-skilled jobs? If not, it is very likely that the government will introduce at least some equivalent schemes for labour migration in low skilled jobs after free movement comes to an end, lest the risk of illegal employment rises due to employers not having sufficient legal options to recruit migrant workers in such jobs.
A new Bellwether discussion paper titled ‘A dangerous allegiance to the status quo?’ published by LexisNexis UK, highlights the very real concerns of small and independent Law firms around the forthcoming Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) reforms.
The LexisNexis Bellwether Research found that 57% of respondents were simply unaware that the SRA is proposing regulatory changes likely to take effect later this year. The SRA’s ‘Looking to the Future’ reform aims to simplify how consumers of legal services access the services of solicitors and law firms whilst ensuring that high professional standards are maintained.
Key concerns raised by respondents include:
Jon Whittle, Market Development Director, LexisNexis UK commented: “At a time when solicitors appear disillusioned with regulatory bodies, the findings raise real questions over the SRA’s relationship with smaller law firms and its strategy when it comes to reform. The SRA is there to ensure standards are maintained, but it needs to act in a way that does not alienate the firms with which it works. There is a pervasive concern that reforms could drive unfair levels of competition, compromise the rule of law, and lead to a race to the bottom, fundamentally damaging business reputation and bottom line.”
“While everyone polled recognised that the regulator’s primary role is to support the interests of clients, few professionals in small and independent law firms see a compelling argument for these reforms and even less have considered what action they should take as a result. However, whilst the SRA has work to do, it is still, to some extent, the responsibility of small firms themselves to keep up-to-date with industry developments and reform.”
The LexisNexis Bellwether research also reveals that:
Whittle continues: “Having in place systems and processes to monitor upcoming changes and regulation, to help ensure there is adequate time to respond, is crucial. Here at LexisNexis we have developed products which help firms to do just this. Investing time and resource in getting these procedures right will save a great deal of time and hassle down the line and avoid potentially damaging breaches or non-compliance. Responsibility sits on both sides – with solicitors and the regulator.”
(Source: LexisNexis Legal & Professional)
