Do you have a paralegal working in your firm? It can be tempting not to give them the recognition they deserve, particularly if it appears to reduce costs.  However, giving your Paralegals formal recognition can encourage loyalty and provide status. Here Amanda Hamilton at the National Association of Licenced Paralegals discusses the benefits of giving paralegals due recognition.

In addition, encouraging them to join a professional body such as NALP (National Association of Licensed Paralegals) and giving them the opportunity to gain paralegal qualifications (for example, through NALP Training), will add credibility to your organization and give the right impression to potential customers.

Paralegals are defined as ‘persons who are trained and educated to perform certain legal tasks, but who are not qualified solicitors, barristers or chartered legal executives’.

Some work for solicitors, others for barristers and in-house legal departments, but more and more, Paralegals are working for themselves. For example, in specialist areas like tenant evictions or small claims for money owed.  For a legal firm, having access to registered, specialist Paralegals can allow you to offer a wide range of services. These Paralegals may be employed within your firm, or contracted on a freelance basis.

Paralegals are no longer just graduates who cannot find training contracts or ‘would be’ solicitors; for many the Paralegal Profession is a genuine career path option.

Attracting and retaining top talent is always a challenge – but by offering formal recognition for your Paralegal staff, and perhaps allowing them days off for training, you can attract better applicants and retain your best people.

Everyone likes to be recognized and rewarded for the work they do – this is one way to achieve that.  On the flip-side, ignoring the status and contribution of your ‘non-qualified solicitor staff’ may lead to a talent exodus as staff look for fulfilment elsewhere – perhaps by setting up their own independent practice. It is therefore in the solicitors’ best interests to properly recognize the value of their paralegal staff and their status.

For Paralegals working within your firm, there are bespoke nationally recognized qualifications to help them hone their skills and knowledge – building their confidence and increasing the services you offer to clients.

Plus, if your Paralegals are suitably trained and qualified, there is the opportunity to delegate more work to them. This can free you up to take on more clients – or perhaps have an afternoon off now and then!

Paralegals can do virtually everything that a solicitor can do, including, but not limited to, assistance in a matrimonial matter; helping with a claim if a client is being taken to court over a debt or needs to take a third party to court to recover a debt; taking action against an employer through a Tribunal; writing a Will or obtaining a Lasting Power of Attorney in respect of a relative; housing and welfare matters. You could also apply for ‘Police Station Accreditation’ for your Paralegal staff so that they can assist clients who have been arrested for a minor criminal offence and need representation.

However, it is important to remember that there are certain activities that are designated ‘reserved activities’ and these must be performed by a qualified solicitor. For example: automatically having the right to represent someone in all courts, the conveyancing process (i.e. buying and selling property) and some probate activities (i.e. sorting out a person’s estate (assets) after they die).

Apart from this, there is plenty of scope for a Paralegal within your firm not only to advise and assist a consumer, but also to gain a Licence to Practise in order to do so.

Last week the US Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Trump v. Hawaii that President Donald Trump's proclamation restricting entry from particular Muslim-majority countries was ‘within in his authority’.

To gain a US perspective on this, Lawyer Monthly has heard from several US legal experts nationwide on the complexities involved in this judgement and overall impact.

Brad Biren, Senior Associate, Johnston Martineau:

The Court divided itself on an interesting idea: How far back can the Court look back to determine animus in a given Executive order? In any case, under Romer v. Evans, the Court has the right to examine any governmental action for arbitrary and capricious discrimination also known as animus. The statutory authority of the President to act in the Nation's interest or defense given to him by Congress--as they have plenary power to regulate immigration--does not include a test for animus. The court has inscribed that as a preliminary test under constitutional muster. Thus, all statutes where the plaintiffs claim discrimination or discriminatory intention can argue that an executive order fails under Romer due to the existence of animus for a specific group.

In this case, that's exactly what the plaintiffs did--they said the President was motivated by animus. To prove there point they presented information, soundbites, and quotes from before Trump's election. The famous "Muslim ban" statement was used for example. The Court asked at what point do we look back to examine for animus? They answered by stating that inauguration is the limitation in time for looking back and determining animus. Trump did not mention discriminatory statements related to the immigration ban after his inauguration, thus the court found no animus and separately no violations under the Congressional delegation of powers to the President.

Andrew Greenfield, Managing Partner of the Washington, D.C. office of Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernsen & Loewy:

The US Supreme Court has predictably affirmed President Trump’s authority to restrict travel to the United States by those he deems a threat to national security. Notwithstanding his calls for a Muslim ban on the campaign trail, the majority of justices determined his actions as president to be rational and not the result of religious animus.

Unlike earlier iterations, the current Ban does not apply to anyone physically in the United States as of October 18, 2017, and those abroad on that date but already in possession of US visa. There are also several classes of individuals expressly exempt from the Ban. These include US permanent residents (i.e., green card holders), dual citizens presenting passports from a non-banned country, certain diplomats and international organization employees seeking A or G visas, those holding government-issued travel documents, and asylees.

Those abroad and without visas as of October 18, 2017, and who are not exempt, will be subject to the Ban depending on their citizenship and the type of visa they are requesting, as follows:

The Ban offers some hope to individuals with valid and compelling stories to tell, as anyone can request a visa appointment and ask for a waiver during their interviews at US consulates. Waivers are available only to those whose travel is in the US national interest, who pose no threat to national security or public safety, and who would suffer undue hardship if denied a visa. The Ban provides numerous examples of persons who might qualify for a waiver. These include Canadian permanent residents; those pursuing important business or professional obligations or returning to their jobs, schools, or certain exchange programs; immediate relatives of US citizens and green card holders facing hardships; infants, young children and those needing urgent medical care; those attending meetings with the US government or traveling on behalf of international organizations; and valuable current and former US government employees.

Regardless of the travel Ban, all applicants for visas and admission to the US may be subject to heightened screening and corresponding delays. Prospective visa applicants from any one of the above countries should carefully consider the risks of delay before finalizing international travel plans.

Debra Opri, Esq., women's and child rights advocate and litigator:

Having been asked to 'weigh in' on the US Supreme Court's ruling that plaintiffs did not establish a case against President Trump's travel ban under the Establishment Clause, my initial comment is that 'under the Establishment Clause the First Amendment protection of religion requires a violation of the right of religious freedom, and that the Supreme Court failed to find such a violation.' Let's move this dialogue of the policies of the Trump Administration a little further.

First, this discussion is not to render yet another opinion -- there are enough already. Rather, it is to ask the questions that address the conflict that confronts us as a country. Does the perceived harshness of the laws that exist versus the fine lines of the realities that permeate our society as to immigration issues weigh more heavily than does the desire to soften our borders? I've traveled this world. A lot. Our country is perceived as a great place. Yet, nowhere do border issues exist more than here. Why? Does the act of separating children and parents at a border requiring adherence to our laws win out? Do we counter that action by enforcing our laws or looking the other way? Do we require more tolerance or less? Is a travel ban necessary? Does the President of the United States have the right to take action or to not take action? Where do we place the emphasis of protecting our citizens? Why has immigration become a hot topic that our government seemingly doesn't have the stomach to make decisions on? Is kicking the can down the road a policy that helps or hurts us?

In the end, it is not the opinions of millions that is an issue even the US Supreme Court has chosen to deal with. But we must ask these questions of our leaders. All of them...

Dilnaz Saleem, Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC:

On June 26th in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court upheld a presidential proclamation that bans the entry of certain individuals primarily from Muslim majority countries stating that the ban is "squarely within" the president's authority. These travel restrictions will continue to remain in place until the Administration lifts them or removes particular countries from the list. The justices in the majority upheld the travel ban because, as they said in their opinion, presidents have ample legal authority to make national security decisions in the area of immigration.

The travel ban has been one of the most politically fraught and hotly contested issues of Trump’s presidency. Ultimately, we see now that the Supreme Court believes that the President was lawfully exercising his authority relating to immigration matters as granted to him by Congress. The ruling, however, sends a clear message of rejecting visa applications from nationals of countries deemed to pose a security threat to the US Although the executive order allows for granting waivers on a case-by-case basis, there is no formal system in place to request such a waiver and only a very limited number of exceptions are granted.

The executive order is symptomatic of the current administration's approach to foreign policy and immigration matters, and while the outcome in this case was not entirely unexpected, the long-term impact for those from the nations named in this travel ban are harsh. While the order certainly makes it more difficult for foreign students and those seeking to work in the US, the order makes it nearly impossible to unify families who are currently separated. It also creates greater barriers to enroll international students and recruit global talent, which makes it difficult for universities and employers to remain competitive. The ban will also serve as having a chilling effect for highly skilled labor in industries facing shortages such as medical education, research, and patient care. Individuals who may have had to wait years to obtain visas will now be stuck in limbo for an indefinite period as nothing further can be done to obtain their visa.

Jeremy Sacks, Partner, Stoel Rives LLP:

In Trump v. Hawaii, the recent US Supreme Court case upholding the Administration’s Executive Order largely barring travel to the United States by citizens of several majority-Muslim nations, Justice Sotomayor’s dissent identified the key issue for many critics—that the travel ban runs roughshod over the Establishment Clause. Despite listing many of Mr. Trump’s public diatribes against Islam and Muslims, the Majority’s opinion adopts a rational basis analysis and defers to the Administration’s facial pretext for adopting the order: We need this restriction to keep us safe.

Whether or not this assertion is true, the Court’s invocation of national security grounds to justify its abdication of meaningful review is extremely troubling. From a legal perspective, the Court has signaled to the Administration that it only needs to invoke the magic words “national security” to justify a range of actions to which the Court will defer. The White House already has cloaked significant policy decisions in the mantle of “national security”: tariffs against Canada, tariffs against the EU, separating migrant families at the border, etc., notwithstanding the lack of evidence bearing out any real “national security” concerns under applicable statutes. But the signal the Majority opinion in Trump v. Hawaii sent to Mr. Trump is clear: Go ahead. We won’t pay attention to what goes on behind the curtain of your pretext. After all, you’ve already told us that only you can fix it.

And that should give us all pause. What if Mr. Trump asserts executive privilege based on “national security” concerns to withhold key information relating to Mr. Mueller’s investigation of Russia’s intervention in support of Mr. Trump in 2016? Will the Court use a rational basis rule to ignore evidence that contradicts the Administration’s “national security” pretext? For a judge who cares about the Supreme Court’s legitimacy as a third and co-equal branch of our government, Chief Justice Roberts’ majority opinion in Trump v. Hawaii may come back to haunt him. Soon.

Are we still a government of laws and not of men, as John Adams wrote? Time will tell.

'Oversexed, overpaid and over here' was a comic quip used by British soldiers to describe the thousands of American GIs who were stationed in Britain before D-Day. It was, of course, good humoured banter. Today’s march of US law firms in London is the modern equivalent of their wartime military counterparts, and such firms have made increasingly big strides with nearly 6,000 lawyers working for US firms in London. One Washington wag labels them “our most ominous export.”

Unlike America, England has a largely split legal profession: despite increasing rights of audience for solicitors, very few exercise them in the highest courts. The English Bar – comprised of barristers who appear in court arguing their client’s case – has therefore remained almost entirely immune to this American invasion. The vast majority of barristers are either British, or born within countries that comprise the British Commonwealth. But unusual things are happening at one set of barristers’ chambers, 3 Hare Court, which seems to be challenging this long established dynamic.

Last month, 3 Hare Court (3HC) announced that a distinguished American was joining its ranks: former Justice of the Delaware Supreme Court, Randy Holland became a door tenant. To have international lawyers and former judges as door tenants is not unusual: Australian, Singaporean, South African and Indian nationals are common at many of the larger commercial sets. Not so Americans. Holland, therefore, is breaking fresh ground – something he has a track record of doing.

A self-confessed anglophile and a huge admirer of the English Bar, he is an Honorary Bencher at Lincoln’s Inn – one of only three Americans. Holland is also an honorary member of COMBAR, a past president of the American Inns of Court, co-author of a book on Middle Temple Lawyers and the American Revolution, and editor of a book about Magna Carta. His appointment at 3HC creates a further trans Atlantic bridge.

‘The advantage of the split profession in England is the teamwork that you see between barristers and solicitors,’ says Holland. ‘I have always been impressed by it. What I like about it is the litigation: how everyone tries their best to be helpful to the court, even though you're an advocate in an adversarial system.’

At the age of 39, Holland was appointed as the youngest ever Supreme Court Justice in Delaware, a position he held for 31 years before retiring from the bench last year. When he stepped down, the Delaware Supreme Court wanted to set up an endowment in his name to create an attorney position for indigent services. Their initial contribution was $200,000. As a mark of the esteem in which Holland is held, the legal community raised over $2m in five months to fund the position.

After practising by himself for six years, he became a partner in Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell. ‘It was a broad based practice, I appeared in every court in the state, before almost every judge,’ says Holland.

After only 14 years in practice, he was appointed to the Delaware Supreme Court. ‘I never aspired to be a judge,’ he says. ‘I was drafted, for want of a better term - I got a lot of encouragement.’ Delaware had a judicial selection appointment system based on merit, not election. Since retirement from the bench, Holland has also joined the Delaware office of Palo Alto based Wilson Sonsini, which is shortly opening a London office. In terms of his role at 3HC, Holland explains: ‘People call barristers’ chambers and sometimes they are looking for an arbitrator. I can’t go to court, but if someone calls chambers and would like to have an arbitrator with international experience, they can mention that I am affiliated with them.’

Holland has recently been in London, testifying as an expert witness in a commercial court case. He agrees that he will also be an ambassador for 3HC ‘to the extent, I am well known in the United States and in London Circles when it becomes known that I am a door tenant there. That will be beneficial. It's a great honour for me and I'm looking forward to my continued interaction with members of the English legal community.’

In a ground-breaking piece of research, legal market experts Acritas has published an Index that shows the power of alternative legal service providers. This new Index has been established to identify the strongest non-law firm brands within this rapidly growing part of the broader global legal industry.

221 senior in-house counsel, collectively responsible for $1.2bn of legal spend, were asked to name organisations that provide legal services, excluding law firms, that first come to mind along with those they most favoured.

The legal industry is fixated on distinguishing work delivered by lawyers and non-lawyers but in reality, clients just want effective solutions to their broad portfolio of legal work. Acritas created this Index to complement its existing Asia Pacific Law Firm Brand Index which has been published annually for the last five years. The aim is to respond to the increasing diversity of legal services providers that in-house departments turn to, to help them provide legal support to their organizations in the most effective and cost-efficient way.

PwC Legal emerges as the strongest brand in the first-ever Acritas Asia Pacific Alternative Legal Brand Index. PwC Legal was the most favoured overall and two times more recognised than the next closest contender for awareness.

David Johnson, Account Director at Acritas, commented: “PwC Legal’s ambitious plans to become a global top 20 legal services player put growth in Asia at the top of its agenda - and our latest research shows this focus in terms of brand strength at least is paying dividends.”

Second place goes to EY who receive an uplift in their market position based on clients’ recognition of its innovative and alternative approaches to doing legal work. KPMG secures third spot in the Index.

“All the Big 4 accounting firms benefit from being dominant brands in the professional services sector, but PwC Legal has made the most progress in being recognised in this region. This visibility lends significant advantage to their brand platform, critical to success across such a vastly diverse market,” said David.

Other strong performing brands included LexisNexis, who perform well in terms of favourability among clients for their useful research and databases, and Thomson Reuters who score top marks for innovation. In fact, Thomson Reuters outperforms the next most innovative player in the Asia Pacific legal market by two-fold.

The findings confirm senior in-house counsel are open to buying legal services from a widening range of providers in their drive to deliver the greatest possible value for their organisations.

“A growing number of companies are implementing technology solutions to help access know-how and organise work, utilising flexible and agile resources to fulfill fluctuating work volume and specialised expertise, or instructing professional services advisors who offer a holistic solution. This is the legal industry reality in 2018. The coming years will favour those firms or non- traditional legal service providers most able to adapt and innovate in this new world”, David added.

(Source: Acritas)

Elon Musk, CEO and Founder of Tesla, is being accused of infringing on copyright and is happy to admit this is the case.

According to reports, promotional material for Tesla used the same images of a unicorn farting into a pipe in order to power a car; material originally drawn by Colorado potter Tom Edwards. In this case Tesla did not have permissions to use this image.

It all began in February 2017 when Musk tweeted a picture of the mug originally designed by Edwards to his millions of followers with the caption: ‘Rainbows, unicorns and electric cars’.

Matt Jones, partner at intellectual property firm EIP commented for Lawyer Monthly: “This is a particularly interesting dispute. What we have here is one party being accused by another of copyright infringement and, apparently, admitting to the actions they are being accused of – but refusing to pay compensation to the creator. This is something quite rare in these sorts of cases.

“Normally, the defendant would try to argue that there are significant differences between the two works, and in any event that there was no copying. In this instance, though, there is no defence being provided, and if anything, Mr Musk is being provocative by claiming it would be “lame” for the artist, Tom Edwards, to sue, and that apparently Mr Edwards should be grateful for the attention. This is a surprising response to a request to settle the dispute amicably.”

A brief introduction into Making Tax Digital. Learn when it is set to be implemented, how it will effect your business and what we recommend with regards to Cloud Accountancy software to ensure compliance.

The Bar Council’s flagship social mobility initiative, Bar Placement Week, will this week mark 10 years of giving sixth form students from non-traditional backgrounds the opportunity to spend a week experiencing life as a barrister. The 10 year anniversary of the scheme comes as the Bar Council launches a new social mobility campaign online, entitled ‘I am the Bar’, which aims to encourage more people with the necessary talent and potential to pursue a career at the Bar, irrespective of their socio-economic background.

Bar Placement Week has been pairing talented sixth form students from non-traditional backgrounds with practising barristers in London for 10 years.  In 2014, the programme won a Halsbury Legal Award and was expanded to give opportunities to students in Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, Birmingham and Bristol.

Students spend three days shadowing their barrister in chambers and in court. On the final day of the scheme, students attend talks by barristers and/or judges, and receive advocacy training from the Inns of Court College of Advocacy. Prizes are awarded for the best student advocates by a senior member of the Bar.

Andrew Walker QC, Chair of the Bar, said: “There is still a perception that to join the Bar you have to come from a wealthy or privileged background.  The 10^th anniversary of Bar Placement Week highlights our long-term commitment to challenging that misconception, and to reaching out widely with the aim of inspiring students from all backgrounds to consider a career at the Bar.  The Bar wants and needs to attract the best talent from across the country, irrespective of socio-economic background, and to do so we need to break down barriers to aspiration and to the attainment of students’ full potential.  One of the best ways of doing this is to give promising students first-hand experience of the life of a barrister.  Bar Placement Week does this, and even if not all participants go on to consider becoming barristers, the week gives them a glimpse into the vital role barristers play in the administration of justice – an insight that we hope the students will all carry with them into their adult lives.

“Bar Placement Week has been a success for the Bar and, I believe, for the many talented students who have taken part over the last decade, but we want to build on it and show more students and others that they really can aspire to become a barrister.  The ‘I am the Bar’ campaign is designed to show what individuals from all backgrounds can achieve, to highlight the support and encouragement available, and to explain just how many different paths have been followed by today’s barristers, leading to highly successful careers at the Bar of England and Wales.”

Lord Neuberger, the immediate past President of the Supreme Court, whose 2007 inquiry into background of entrants to the Bar prompted the Bar Council to launch Bar Placement Week, said: “The Bar is a profession dedicated to excellence and to justice. That dedication should not be limited to individual commitment on the part of every practising barrister. It is just as important that it extends to the recruitment of future barristers, and that means enabling people with potential, irrespective of background, ethnic group or gender, to have a real opportunity of considering a career at the Bar. Bar Placement Week performs just such a role, by enabling young people to spend a few days with an experienced practitioner and to see what being a barrister actually involves.”

(Source: The Bar Council)

IP Law Summit Europe 2018

Date: 19th - 20th November 2018

Venue:Le Méridien, Monte Carlo, Monaco

The IP Law Summit is the premium forum for bringing senior IP Counsel within the largest corporations and mid-market organizations together with service providers. As an invitation-only event taking place behind closed doors, the Summit offers an intimate environment for a focused discussion of cutting-edge technology, strategy and products driving the IP marketplace.

For more information and to register: IP Law Summit Europe 2018

IP Law Summit

Date: 13th - 15th September 2018

Venue: Omni Orlando Resort Championsgate | Orlando, FL

The IP Law Summit is the premium forum for bringing senior IP Counsel within the largest corporations and mid-market organizations together with service providers. As an   invitation-only event taking place behind closed doors, the Summit offers an intimate environment for a focused discussion of cutting-edge technology, strategy and products driving the IP marketplace.

For more information and to register: IP Law Summit 2018

Chief Litigation Officer Summit 2018

Date: 13th - 15th September 2018

Venue: Omni Orlando Resort Championsgate | Orlando, FL

The Chief Litigation Officer Summit is the premium forum for bringing leading in-house litigation counsel across the nation together with service providers. As an invitation-only event taking place behind closed doors, the Summit offers a unique forum for service providers to interact with heads of litigation from the country’s leading organizations in an intimate environment.

For more information or to register: Chief Litigation Officer Summit 2018