Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
Changing the way barristers are trained would dramatically alter the Bar’s standards as it would give solicitors an easy run on getting in, the Bar Council has stated.
The proposals to change the route of training and education for barristers would heighten the chance of having solicitors who are not as familiar to certain testing. In a statement, the representative body said this reform would, “be attractive to solicitors who regard admission to the Bar as a badge of achievement, and who will recognise that this route to that badge is fundamentally less arduous than the route barristers currently take”.
Adding it would, “swell the ranks of the Bar with those who will not have faced the same testing regime, and without giving the undiscerning public any means of distinguishing between the two at the point of instruction”.
“No doubt there will be many distinguished academics with a good broad grounding in English law who already have the skills taught on the vocational stage; but it seems to us perfectly possible that there may be some teachers of law (for instance perhaps very specialised academic lawyers) who will not. Given the imprecise definition of those who fall within this rule it is particularly important to avoid passporting people through two of the three stages of bar training”.
These new rules will be finalised in Autumn and come into effect next year.
Gifts in Wills are a vital source of income for many charitable organisations. Many rely on this income to sustain the provision of their services for often the most vulnerable in our society.
According to 'Legacy Trends 2018' published by Smee & Ford, charity legacy income reached a record high of £2.8bn in 2017, up by £37.8m on the previous year. That said, only 6.1% of the population leave a charitable gift in their Will. This provides a great opportunity for charities and Smee & Ford estimates that if just 1% of the non-charitable estates in 2017 included a charitable gift in their Will, it would have raised an additional £97m for charities.
The recent death of Richard Cousins, a 58-year-old widower who perished in a tragic sea plane accident on New Year's Eve in 2017 along with his two sons, his fiancé and her young daughter, has brought legacy giving to the forefront of media and public attention.
Richard Cousins was head of the catering company, Compass and during his lifetime accumulated a multi-million-pound fortune. It has been widely reported it had been Cousin's intention to leave the majority of his wealth in trust for his two sons, but given they sadly died with him, the 'common tragedy clause' in his Will came into play.
Under the terms of Cousin's Will, given he and his beneficiaries died at the same time or within close proximity of his death, his chosen charity, Oxfam are to be the principle beneficiary of his estate. Without such clause, in the event that all Cousins’ intended beneficiaries died, his wealth would have been distributed in accordance with the Intestacy rules.
It has been reported that Oxfam will receive a legacy of approximately £41m (although the figure has yet to be confirmed as it is too early in the probate administration). Cousins' two brothers, Simon and Andrew will each receive £1m.
It is clear Cousins received sound professional advice at the time he made his Will and whilst such unfortunate tragedies are rare, it is nonetheless important for people to consider all eventualities when deciding what they want to happen when they die.
The media coverage of the sad death of Richard Cousins will hopefully encourage people to have open and honest conversations about what they want to happen when they die and plan for even the most unlikely of scenarios. Such conversations, coupled with specialist advice, can help to avoid conflict and distress at a later date.
This case also demonstrates the importance of legacy giving for our society. Last year it accounted for the largest single source of income for the charity sector. Our economy simply cannot afford to bridge that gap for charities in the event legacy giving declines. Many charitable organisations fulfil vital roles within our society and we must ensure they are adequately funded to do so.
Kerry Morgan-Gould is a Partner at national law firm Ashfords LLP in the Disputed Wills and Trusts Team.
If you would like to discuss your Will or legacy giving please contact Kerry Morgan-Gould on k.morgan-gould@ashfords.co.uk or 01884 203023.
Amazon are reportedly investigating claims that workers are selling confidential information for money. The investigations, mainly focused in China, are part of a wider effort to clamp down on malicious practices at the online shopping giant.
A report by the Wall Street Journal has stated Amazon employees are accepting payments for internal data from independent merchants in order to manipulate information appearing on their website (www.amazon.com). The brokers for Amazon [in China] reportedly offer internal figures and information to sellers for a price of $80-$2000. Moreover, it appears that not only are several Amazon employees are selling confidential information, they are also supposedly removing all bad product reviews, which thus results in certain products receiving higher rankings. It is believed that this issue is more widespread in China, where a boom in third-party sellers coupled with low wages for Amazon employees is breeding malfeasance.
Amazon have now started a full investigation into the claims, stating they have “zero tolerance for abuse” of their systems and that immediate action would be taken against anyone found guilty, as well as “terminating their selling accounts, deleting reviews, withholding funds, and taking legal action”.
A spokeswoman for Amazon said, “We hold our employees to a high ethical standard and anyone in violation of our code faces discipline, including termination and potential legal and criminal penalties”.
Reports of the manipulating of product reviews is not a new thing for the e-commerce company. Back in 2015 they sued 1000 people who at the time were selling “fake reviews” of their products.
It is said that while China remains the problem area, incidents are being reported in other countries including the US, but as of yet no legal charges have been made either by Amazon or customers.
Quarrelling Family Receive Judgment Fifteen Years After Father’s Death
Litigation experts at top law firm Irwin Mitchell Private Wealth are highlighting how written partnership agreements are vital for farming businesses in order to avoid complex will disputes.
In the latest farming dispute to emerge from the courts, a judge has ruled that a £1.65 million farm and bungalow were to be included in the deceased’s estate rather than part of a farming business.
The deceased, Ben Wild, died in 2003 and the farming partnership continued between the two brothers, Malcolm and Gregory Wild, until 2016 when relations broke down.
Claimant Gregory Wild believed the farm and bungalow to be a part of the farming partnership, therefore subject to the partnership’s winding-down proceedings, whereas defendants Malcolm Wild, his wife Abigail and his mother Jean argued the farm and bungalow had passed to Jean as specified in their father’s will.
Malcolm and Abigail had also invested significantly in the bungalow’s renovation, which during the case was valued at £285,000. Another point of contention was how much of the renovation’s budget had come from the farming partnership, which Gregory argued was a majority.
Accounts for the partnership and mentions of the farm and bungalow were patchy as records had been lost or never recorded, which is where the dispute arose. Will dispute experts at Irwin Mitchell Private Wealth urge the importance of keeping up-to-date documentation for farming businesses, particularly if there is the expectation that a family member will inherit it.
Heather Roberts, an associate in the Will, Trust and Estate Disputes team, said: “This was a complex dispute that involved deciding whether the farm, and by extension the bungalow which defendants Malcolm and Abigail Wild lived in, was a part of the farming partnership or part of the deceased’s estate.
“It was a good outcome for the defendants as the judge ruled the farm and bungalow were indeed belonging to their mother Jean Wild and that they had a proprietary estoppel claim against the bungalow, which has been their home for decades. However, the dispute could have been avoided had the family made sure that all assets were clearly accounted for either in a will or a formal partnership agreement decades earlier.
“The Wild brothers’ relationship had deteriorated significantly over the years, even coming to blows in the past as mentioned in the judgment. It is likely the stress and cost – both emotional and monetary - of the will dispute that has taken years to resolve soured relations even further.
“Other families that have a family business and have an understanding that it may pass to them upon the death of their parents should look into drawing up a formal agreement to avoid this situation – the more complex a structure, the lengthier and more costly the dispute could be.”
(Source: Irwin Mitchell)
Figures just released show that the SFO is increasing its use of raids in criminal investigations. Aziz Rahman, of business crime solicitors Rahman Ravelli, explains how and why such raids should be challenged.
The number of raids carried out by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) to gather evidence for criminal investigations more than tripled in the past year.
The SFO carried out 30 raids in the last financial year, compared to just nine the previous year. This figure is the highest for six years. These statistics could be seen as an indicator of a more “in your face’’ SFO – an organisation that is increasingly on the front foot when it comes to investigating white-collar crime.
Whether the September arrival of Lisa Osofsky, a former United States prosecutor, as the new SFO Director will mean the current rate of raids being maintained remains to be seen. That will depend as much on the nature of the cases that make their way to the SFO as it will on Ms Osofky’s personal approach to the role of the organisation she is taking over. While the higher raid figures could be proof of a more aggressive SFO, it could just be that the caseload at that time required more raids than in recent years.
It would, therefore, be premature to read too much into the increased number of raids. Maybe if the figures stay high – or go even higher – in the next few years, we will be able to say with certainty that the SFO is increasingly keen to raid those it suspects of wrongdoing.
For now, however, the only real certainty is that the SFO is currently carrying out more raids as part of its criminal investigations than it has for a number of years. And that makes it even more important that any individual or organisation that is the subject of one knows how to respond.
Response
The wrong response to an SFO raid can be damaging to anyone who comes under investigation. What must also be remembered, however, is that a considered, intelligent response to a raid can go a long way to stopping an SFO investigation - or at least ensuring there are plenty of grounds for challenging the SFO’s assumptions, allegations and actions if and when a case goes to trial.
A raid is an important early stage of an investigation. The right response can certainly minimise the damage to the subject of one. Such a response involves knowing your legal options when a raid is carried out so that the agency carrying out the raid – whether it be the SFO or other organisation - does not exceed its powers.
Basic checks on whether there is legal authority for the raid and exactly what type of raid can be carried out need to be made. Also, are those individuals looking to carry out the raid named on the appropriate paperwork? Can they prove their identity? Is the mandate for the raid for the right period of time? These checks may not, on their own, seem such a major step. But they can prevent any abuse of procedures.
A similar, cautious approach is necessary once a raid begins. Anyone who is raided needs to make copies of any documents taken and take notes of any discussions between them and those conducting the raid. Those carrying out the raid must also be followed so that they do not take anything they are not allowed to and do not read anything that may be covered by legal privilege.
Warrants
Investigating authorities must apply for a warrant to raid a premises. Most are issued under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE). Rules must be followed regarding the application for a search warrant and the conduct of the raid: if they are not followed, the search and the warrant could be quashed and any property that has been seized may be ordered to be returned. If a defence team can find a breach of any of the rules, it can challenge the legality of the warrant, the raid and any resulting prosecution that an investigating authority brings.
An example of this was Chatwani and others V the National Crime Agency [2015]. The NCA had obtained search warrants for ten defendants and their companies as part of a money laundering investigation. But the case ended with the NCA having to accept that its raids were unlawful and the court ordering that it could not keep any material seized in the raid or any copies of it that had been made. This was because the defendants' lawyers argued successfully that the NCA had not disclosed all relevant matters to the court when applying for search warrants, had not specified what it was searching for when applying for the warrants, had exceeded the warrants’ scope by seizing personal possessions and had not disclosed that it intended to plant listening devices during the raid.
As a case, it shows the importance for the authorities of following the letter of the law in all aspects of the planning and execution of a raid. This was also demonstrated in R (Cook) v Serious Organised Crime Agency [2011], when warrants were issued and searches carried out but schedules to the warrant were not left at the searched premises, as required. The result was the seizure of the items being ruled unlawful and SOCA having to pay damages and certain legal costs. This case also established that unlawful seizure could not be rendered lawful by any subsequent re-seizure.
Tchenguiz
It must also be noted that the SFO has had legal problems of its own arising from a failure to plan and conduct a raid in accordance with the law.
In 2011, the Tchenguiz brothers, Vincent and Robert, were both raided by the SFO in relation to suspected misconduct regarding the collapse of an Icelandic bank. But the SFO ended up reaching costly financial settlements with each brother after it was shown to have over-emphasised certain aspects of the case while applying for the search warrants. The SFO had failed to produce all relevant material, made at least one serious factual omission and demonstrated what the court heard was a “lack of understanding’’ of the brothers’ dealings.
But such findings were only made after the brothers challenged the conduct of the SFO. Any such challenge requires a careful examination of the legal arguments put forward by the SFO - or any other agency – when it seeks a warrant for a raid and its subsequent conduct during the raid.
Rights
The law makes provision for legal challenges to be made to any agency’s activities in relation to a raid.
Section 21 of PACE gives people certain rights of access to their material that has been seized. While officers involved in raids may believe they can take what they want and hold it indefinitely, this is not the case. The Supplementary Attorney General’s Guidance -The Guidance on Disclosure of Digitally Stored Material (July 2011) sets out limits regarding what those carrying out the raid can do with digitally-stored material.
There is scope for a defence team to hold to account anyone involved in a raid who exceeds their powers. The comprehensive scheduling of all seized material, the swift return of computers and no unauthorised copying of material – such as material covered by legal privilege – are matters that can be scrutinised by the defence for any errors on behalf of the raiding agency. And this can all be done before any further challenges are mounted regarding issues such as the reliability of evidence or the validity of the arguments and assumptions that the prosecution are relying on.
It is important to remember that although raids are never pleasant and may be of great use to investigating agencies such as the SFO, they can present opportunities for a defence team to stop an investigation in its tracks if errors have been made by the authorities.
Not every error will lead to a search warrant being quashed. But challenges are, in our opinion and experience, often worthwhile – and a strong, early chance to halt an investigation.
One of the most critical decisions you will have to make throughout the course of your careers is selecting the perfect business bag. Now if that doesn't seem like it is a topic of grave importance to you, think about it this way; your business bag will be there for all the important moments of your career, from client cases, meetings with partners, promotions, to the victories in the courtroom. Finding the right bag to complement your working style can add a sense of ease to your work life.
Selecting the right bag to accompany you on your working journey should be done strategically, breaking it down into three criteria of importance: Quality, Storage, and Transit. Ask yourself, what do I need to fit in this bag on a daily basis? How do I prefer to carry my business bag? Lastly, what is the longevity of this bag? If you answer these three questions you will be on your way to finding a long lasting business companion that you are happy to bring. In order to help you answer these questions here are some of our tips:
1. When it comes to leather you want to get the best quality in your price range, durability and style should be taken strongly into consideration. A full grain leather is going to be your most durable option. Full grain leather means that the leather has not been split, and therefore is the most robust version you can find. Style is important to quality as well, you want to look for a design that is timeless if you aim to find a bag that will last you a while.
2. The next thing you should think about before making a move on your decision is storage. A good starting point to determining what size is right for you is your laptop size, then think about other bulky items you carry on a regular basis. If you travel for business you might also want to consider what you put in your bag for the flights.
3. Last but definitely not least, consider transport. What does your morning and evening commute look like? How would you like to carry this bag? If after thinking about storage you concluded that you store a lot in your bag, then you might want a shoulder strap to bear the weight. A cross body strap is great if you have to walk a distance. If you are just walking from your parking spot to your office, maybe you just need a top handle, or even a clutch style.
After considering these three essential points, you will be ready to select a bag that will complement your lifestyle and accompany you on your career journey. To kick off your search check out buckleandseam.com for premium full grain cow leather business bags. They offer a selection of timeless and durable business bags, along with other small leather accessories and travel bags.
Hackers have law firms firmly in their crosshairs. According to figures from the National Cyber Security Centre, last year saw a 20% rise in cyber-attacks on law firms. Once a ‘nice to have’, law firms can no longer ignore advanced cyber security. The risk, both to a firm’s finances and reputation, is too great. Randhir Shinde, CEO at Galaxkey, talks to Lawyer Monthly below about the impending need to take action.
Last year’s hacks resulted in more than £11 million of client money being taken from UK firms. This alone represents a need to act, however hackers are not just after money.
Whilst financial reasons are still the main motivation behind most attacks, an increasing number of hackers are keen to access sensitive personal information. As one example of this, we are seeing nation states beginning to target law firms that advise sensitive clients. What’s more, some hackers simply attack for ‘sport’, challenging themselves and others to find the juiciest personal information.
As the number of attacks increase, so too do the methods used. Cyber thieves are becoming ever more inventive and are finding new routes into companies’ information – the most common threats being phishing scams, data breaches and ransomware.
Cyber thieves have also broadened their targets. Small UK law firms are at risk, not just the Magic Circle. Small firms are seen as an easier target, likely lacking the sophisticated cyber security infrastructure that larger firms are more likely to invest in.
The General Data Protection Regulation expects that all businesses that handle data take reasonable steps to ensure that data is managed and held securely. It can be easy to think that this just means encrypting data, but it doesn’t. It means that data must be transited securely, yet few firms consider what this means.
Legal professionals now frequently work remotely or take work home. To do this, employees often email necessary documents to their home accounts. This period of transit leaves data completely unprotected and exposed, but few consider these risks.
Working remotely and on mobile devices presents other risks, particularly with employees using insecure Wi-Fi connections. This is a major security risk, with insecure connections being easier to hack. Despite this, industry research shows that around a third of employees use free, insecure Wi-Fi at cafes, hotels and bars.
Mobile devices can also be lost, stolen or tampered with. It’s essential that measures are in place to protect the company when this happens, or else hackers have an easy route into sensitive information.
Within the office, printers and scanners are often overlooked as devices that can threaten cyber security. These devices store and process data but are often forgotten about. Due to the nature of their work, law firms regularly use such devices for printing and scanning important and confidential contracts or personal documents – a dream target for hackers, who can use these devices for data theft or to plant malware or virus infections.
Digital signatures are another area of concern. These have become increasingly essential for legal professionals, however they are acutely vulnerable to fraud and forgery. Ensure that your firms uses secure document signing technology, these use digital encryption and audit trails to keep the signature secure.
These are just a few areas of concern. Technical solutions are essential to defending against these risks, however employee education is just as important. Data security education requires a company wide effort; it cannot be the sole responsibility of the IT manager. Senior teams must ensure that the entire workforce is clear on the threats of their own actions with regards to working and accessing data remotely.
Few legal businesses have woken up to the increased importance of data security, despite the fact that a quarter report being the victim of a cyber-attack. Until firms begin opening their eyes, clients’ personal information and companies’ finances remain vulnerable and regular data breaches will continue.
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act could provide a shield for liberal businesses seeking to support undocumented immigrants, much the same way the law has allowed conservative companies to challenge enforcement of health care and anti-discrimination laws, a researcher from Oregon State University suggests in a new paper.
“We’re seeing more and more of these religious freedom cases that typically support conservative positions,” said Inara Scott, an assistant professor in the College of Business at Oregon State University whose academic work includes the study of the social aspects of capitalism.
“We wanted to determine if a liberal corporation could apply that same right to religious freedom in situations involving sanctuary or support for undocumented immigrants. We think in some cases, they probably could object to certain immigration policies that conflict with their religious beliefs.”
Scott, who was a practicing attorney before joining OSU, and co-author Elizabeth Brown, an assistant professor of law at Bentley University in Waltham, Mass., studied several examples of corporate or business support of undocumented immigrants using the logic the courts applied recently in Hobby Lobby v. Burwell.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the Hobby Lobby case that closely-held, for-profit corporations could be exempt from a regulation its owners religiously object to if there is a less restrictive means for applying the law under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. It was the first time the court recognized a for-profit corporation’s claim of religious belief. Hobby Lobby had challenged the Affordable Care Act mandate that employers cover certain contraceptives for female employees.
“Religion is not just for conservative values,” Scott said. “We wanted to look at how religious freedom might be applied from the other side.”
Scott and Brown found that the judicial language and reasoning used in the Hobby Lobby case could provide a substantive argument that federal law now supports the concept of a sanctuary corporation – a term the authors coined to describe companies that might shelter or support undocumented individuals. The authors’ analysis was published recently in the University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law.
In the wake of the Hobby Lobby ruling and similar cases, a corporation facing legal repercussions for aiding undocumented immigrants might have a case based on religious freedom protection, Scott said. Some religious institutions have a long history of offering space to immigrant families, with church leaders affirming their obligations to stand with the persecuted and oppressed.
“It would be pretty easy to establish support of undocumented immigrants as a religious value,” Scott said.
Government officials likely would argue that national security interests would outweigh a corporation’s religious freedom rights on issues related to immigration, Scott said, but there may be cases, particularly involving smaller businesses, where that argument would not work.
“Is there some other way to achieve the objective that doesn’t burden an individual citizen’s rights to religious freedom?” she said. “I could see small businesses or individuals such as a taxi driver or restaurant owner making that argument. A small corporation with strong religious values around immigration would have the best chance.”
The researchers’ broader goal is to encourage companies and individuals to begin conversations about the intersections of corporate responsibility, individual freedoms and the goals of generally applicable laws designed to protect the interests of a civil society.
“There is a growing conflict over which interests take precedence,” Scott said. “If there is protection for some types of religious belief, it should apply to all types. We have to look at how application of the law would apply on all sides. Whose beliefs are more important? And what’s in the public’s best interest?”
(Source: OSU College of Business)
Will dispute experts at leading national law firm Irwin Mitchell Private Wealth are warning of the importance of updating a will after a deceased man’s young children had to go to court to apply for maintenance.
Bianca Maria Corrado, who had a long-term affair with the late Malkiat Singh Ubbi, was awarded £386,000 against Mr Ubbi’s £3.5m estate in court this month. Mr Ubbi was still married to his widow and had one disabled child as well as a stepdaughter.
The deceased was described as living a ‘double life’ in the case, running two households to a high standard of living. At the time of Mr Ubbi’s death he was in the process of getting divorced from his wife and was living with Ms Corrado, but died unexpectedly in February 2015 before the divorce was finalised.
Ms Corrado originally sought a lump sum of £850,000 from Mr Singh’s estate. Ms Corrado’s illegitimate children with Mr Singh – aged just three years and six months – had not been provided for in his will, which was dated August 2010, a claim was brought under the Inheritance Act by Ms Corrado on behalf of her children.
Will dispute specialists at Irwin Mitchell Private Wealth are warning that thousands of families could face the same fate. Divorce and remarriage have become increasingly common in society, yet wills are rarely updated after big life events.
“It can be incredibly costly in the long run to let your will languish with outdated information,” said Nazia Nawaz, a senior associate in the will, trust and estate disputes team at Irwin Mitchell Private Wealth. “In this case, the deceased led a double life and stayed married to his former wife while living with his mistress at the time of his death. It’s vital to consider the consequences of staying married to someone when the relationship has broken down irretrievably, particularly if you then have a second family.
“It’s unusual to have infant children as claimants in an Inheritance Act dispute, but it was necessary here to provide for their future – particularly as the relationship between the two separate families was unfriendly at best.”
The judge recognised there is little specified guidance for claims made by infant children, and so this case is likely to be used as future guidance for Inheritance Act claims involving children.
Nazia continued: “The judge noted that while the provisions used in family proceedings can be used for guidance, the question of ‘reasonable financial provision’ in such claims must ultimately be determined in accordance with the Inheritance Act. Mr Ubbi may have wanted his children to receive more from the estate had he set out a provision for them in his will.
“This case also goes to show that while updating a will may seem costly and time-consuming from the outset, the fallout of leaving heirs and second families unaccounted for is much worse. Will disputes can have a devastating effect on families and can massively exacerbate existing tensions.
“It is not commonly known that getting remarried can invalidate a previous will, leaving potential heirs with no option other than to pursue a claim.
“We strongly advise that a person’s will is updated after every major life event, be that divorce, remarriage or death. That way the inevitable stress, cost and fallout from a will dispute can be avoided.”
(Source: Irwin Mitchell)
Social media influencers, who can sway the shopping habits of millions, may not be disclosing that they have been paid for their posts.
The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has launched an investigation into concerns that social media stars are not properly declaring when they have been paid, or otherwise rewarded, to endorse goods or services.
Typically, celebrities and influencers have millions of followers who watch their channels to see where they go on holiday, what they wear, which products they use, the books they read and more.
Online endorsements from celebrities and influencers can help brands reach target audiences and boost sales. Where influencers are paid or rewarded to promote, review or talk about a product in their social media feeds, consumer protection law requires that this must be made clear.
If they do not label their posts properly, fans or followers may be led to believe that an endorsement represents the star’s own view, rather than a paid-for promotion.
They are then more likely to place trust in that product, as they think it has been recommended by someone they admire. They might not do so, however, if it was made clear that the brands featured have paid, or in some other way rewarded, the celebrity in return for endorsement.
As part of its investigation, the CMA has written to a range of celebrities and social media influencers to gather more information about their posts and the nature of the business agreements they have in place with brands.
The CMA investigation is considering the extent to which influencers are clearly and accurately identifying any commercial relationships, and whether people are being misled.
The CMA has seen examples of posts which appear to:
George Lusty, the CMA’s Senior Director for Consumer Protection, said: “Social media stars can have a big influence on what their followers do and buy.
“If people see clothes, cosmetics, a car, or holiday being plugged by someone they admire, they might be swayed into buying it.
“So, it’s really important they are clearly told whether a celebrity is promoting a product because they have bought it themselves, or because they have been paid or thanked in some way by the brand.”
If the CMA finds practices that break consumer protection law, it can take enforcement action.
As part of the investigation the CMA is asking the public to share their experiences. The investigation would particularly benefit from hearing from people who have bought products which were endorsed on social media.
(Source: CMA)
