Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
The ruling delivered on Monday relates to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin,” but does not explicitly mention sexual orientation or gender identity as protected classes.
The prohibition of discrimination based on sex, however, was interpreted by the Court as sufficient justification to extend the Act’s protections to homosexual and transgender individuals.
“An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex,” judge Neil Gorsuch wrote in his opinion.
The ruling is being hailed as a watershed moment for civil rights, guaranteeing protections for more than 7 million LGBT+ individuals in the United States. It is also the first time that the Supreme Court has spoken directly about legal protections for transgender individuals.
Roy T. Englert, a Washington appellate lawyer who wrote an amicus brief in the case, commented on its significance. “As of today, nowhere in the United States is it legal to fire someone for being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. That’s a big deal.”
The decision also stands in contrast to the announcement of the Trump administration last Friday that it is eliminating Obama-era regulations prohibiting discrimination against transgender individuals in healthcare.
Legal practice isn’t going to return to “normal” in the near term. Legal firms, providers and in-house legal departments are evolving and adapting to this new landscape, where the risks are increasing (employment policies, vendor obligations, privacy), but so is pressure to drive efficiency. Essentially, the mandate is do more, but do it differently.
In the current environment, legal teams must move fast, be nimble and employ the right skill sets. This will require a different way of thinking about ‘legal’ roles and considering the creation of diverse career paths. M.E. Reidy, UK General Manager at Axiom, explains the changes we can expect to see in the legal sector.
Historically, the legal profession has focused on, and competed over, how to identify, attract and retain talent. Yet for decades the way the industry has approached recruiting and professional development activities has stifled diversity, inclusion, and innovation.
Now is the time for the industry to reimagine and restructure. This is beyond changing recruiting efforts to target a more diverse pool of talent from a wider net of law programmes – though an important step. We’re talking about reimagining the idea of what working in the legal sector means.
Expertise has long been the barometer for what makes a good lawyer good. But now the bar is higher. Lawyers need to be lawyers+. They need to have the business acumen to understand how to not only drive revenue, but also how to balance risk. It’s about understanding the business’ strategy and complementing it with an appropriate legal strategy; it’s creating a commercial partnership while keeping one eye on the potential legal pitfalls.
Expertise has long been the barometer for what makes a good lawyer good. But now the bar is higher.
Alongside this pivot to commercial partnership, forward-thinking legal teams will augment their practices with non-lawyers, bringing a different skill set and value to the business. In fact, these allied legal professionals, such as project managers, data analysts, business analysts and financial managers, will play a critical role and significantly influence the effectiveness of legal teams in the future. Incorporating this kind of talent will be an investment. It will require the segmentation and unbundling of legal work to identify what work will benefit from a different type of expertise and/or process management. It will require having open, and potentially painful conversations about inherent inefficiencies and mean ceding control on certain project aspects.
But the result will be worth it. Broadening the make-up of the legal team will enable greater adaptability, creativity and productivity. It will allow employers to gain insights from multiple perspectives, deliver beyond siloed expertise and will naturally bring a more diverse group to the table, providing better legal and business outcomes. An additional consideration in the diversification of roles is understanding how to deploy fee-earners into new roles to build their skill sets, or potentially hiring for alternative skills, rather than sector experience.
The legal sector needs to reconsider how to attract the right kind of workforce, to best position itself for this new paradigm. Part of this is offering access to alternative career paths vs. the traditional legal model, such as training and apprenticeships in place of law school, or an increase in in-house apprenticeships, instead of law firm training contracts.
[ymal]
‘Partner or bust’ is an outdated rallying cry that has caused younger generations of lawyers to step away from the industry or seek a different path within it. This break with tradition will only accelerate post-pandemic, as lawyers experience not only a virtual workplace, but a growing awareness that there may be greater efficiency to be had in how work is managed and allocated. This distance has allowed for reflection on what’s next, professionally, and personally. An interest to work in law remains, but now is paired with a curiosity to explore other careers within the sector - the power of data, the clear benefit of strong project management will be ‘side effects’ of the pandemic and are career paths in their own right. Repurposing a legal skill set to bring a new value to the legal team will see growing demand. What will separate the forward-thinking teams is the ability to maintain and effectively realign talent into non-traditional, yet pivotal commercial roles.
As new careers within law take root, the importance of pedigree and provenance will give way to a focus on collaboration, agility, experience, results and competency. The legal sector’s efforts towards embracing new models to improve the effectiveness of its teams and promote and support lawyer empowerment, flexibility and choice, as a result, will need to accelerate.
Legal organisations must look at how their business is structured, how legal work is done and how their talent is utilised. By offering career models that are rooted in self-determination, and flexibility, and a culture that champions diversity and inclusion, the legal industry can improve productivity, deliver more well-rounded client service, and future proof their organisations.
Several major law firms have announced plans to observe the Juneteenth holiday, either by allowing staff to take a paid day of leave or by closing their offices entirely.
These firms include Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom; Debevoise & Plimpton; Ropes & Gray; Dechert; Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison and Sidley Austin.
Skadden was one of the first firms to make the announcement, with managing partner Eric Friedman sending a company-wide email to inform staff that Juneteenth would be recognised as a firm-wide holiday.
“It was in 1865, on June 19th, that enslaved black people in Texas learned that the Civil War had ended and that they were free, more than two years after the effective date of the Emancipation Proclamation,” Friedman wrote.
“We hope this day will provide an opportunity for us to pause from our daily routines to reflect on issues around racism and its impact on our country.”
Skadden was also one of the earliest law firms to issue a statement on the death of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police, which sparked weeks of protests across the US and the world.
Activists are continuing to push for greater recognition of Juneteenth, including its potential designation as a national holiday and official recognition by Wall Street and the New York Stock Exchange.
The way we work is changing. ONS reported that only 5% of the UK workforce worked from home on a regular basis in 2019, whereas now this is almost 50% of the workforce and most office workers. What does this mean for city firms post-pandemic? Is it the end, or a reimagining? Patrick McCrae, CEO of ARTIQ, one of the UK’s foremost art consultancies, offers his opinion on the continued necessity of physical offices.
Coronavirus, in spite of its damage to the global economy and our physical and mental health, is ushering in a change that has been afoot for some years: that of purposeful work. Those firms who can re-emphasise their purpose to all stakeholders will thrive as the best legal candidates assess how their employers reacted during this crisis.
The new reality we find ourselves in is generating some serious questions: Why do I work? Why do I work for this legal firm? Why am I exchanging my time for money with this specific company? This is fundamentally a question of company culture, which is, without regular human interaction and with restricted funds, being tested to breaking point in many city firms.
Following the slow easing of lockdown, it will be increasingly important to have a place to not just work, but to talk, to socialise, and fundamentally, to humanise the legal work we do. The office could evolve from a place of work to the physical and cultural hub of a legal business.
[ymal]
Many firms exist for more than just profit, and for those businesses the office is already representative of company culture – how the business and those who work within it perceive themselves. In the office this often means excellent facilities and design. One of the many ways to signal this is through artworks.
Many of ARTIQ’s legal clients use art collections as a tool for employee engagement. An APPG study found that 60% of people believe art helps them to work more productively and another recent study discovered that individuals work 30% more quickly in workspaces they have had agency in curating themselves. Art can therefore be used to reassert company values.
For example, lawyers Mayer Brown, as part of the changing art collection earlier this year, chose to curate an entirely female and non-binary collection of artists in their client suite to emphasise their support of International Woman’s Day and the work they have been doing around breaking the glass ceiling. Global law firm Herbert Smith Freehills have, for almost a decade now, sponsored the Graduate Art Prize with ARTIQ where the best emerging artists are supported through a group show, mentorship and a cash prize. Their clients and staff alike enjoy art in the offices, but are also reminded of Herbert Smith Freehills’ desire to support emerging talent in the art world as well through their trainee intake and entrepreneurial business, both in their clients and their partners. This is one of the many things legal firms can do to underline their values and purpose.
Many firms exist for more than just profit, and for those businesses the office is already representative of company culture.
It has already been widely reported that we are entering a global mental health crisis as a species, with 80% of adults in Great Britain concerned about the impact of coronavirus on their lives. The global lockdown has created often confusing rules about our private lives, widespread isolation and concern for our heath and the health of our family, friends and colleagues. Business-saving schemes such as the furlough scheme (that 79% of firms are using) have also shaken our sense of financial security. 61% of workers rated their wellbeing positive before lockdown restrictions, dropping to 35% since lockdown has been in place.
For lawyers, whether significantly or not, working from home – sometimes in isolation, sometimes with our families, sometimes with flatmates, occasionally in our purpose-built home offices – has been at times productive, and at times plain awful. Minimal social interaction to structure a day and the omnipresence of our home office set-ups means we’re working 20% longer hours.
It would be ignorant to argue that having a nice office is a magic cure or that mental health issues didn’t exist before lockdown. However, an office that is well-designed, offering a place to socialise and be reminded of company culture, and that is full of art and engagement opportunities, will help. The benefits are tangible: in 2017 the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Arts, Health and Wellbeing in the UK published a comprehensive report collating research showing an undeniable positive link between art and mental wellbeing.
With data showing that after engaging with the arts, 82% of people reported greater wellbeing and 77% engaged in more physical activity, the benefits of art and wellbeing are undeniable. Art is one of a menu of items the cultural hub could offer its staff.
An example of ARTIQ's work with Mayer Brown.
Indeed, already half of all office users believe that artwork makes them more effective at their job, while 61% believe that art inspires them to think and work more creatively. 82% of people consequently believe that artwork is an important addition to the workplace. These stats show how legal employers can help their staff be happier and more engaged.
In terms of clients, with more people working from home, offices are likely to become a key point of difference for businesses wanting to communicate their messaging and purpose to clients, engage employees, and attract new talent. There should be joy in going to the office. A reminder for staff, in the wake of some serious shake-ups of headcount, that they are working for a stable and purposeful legal business. We foresee an attitudinal shift after lockdown, with firms taking a greater interest in how they utilise the office, and how to foster company culture with people increasingly working remotely.
While there is no doubt home working is here to stay, flexibility is vital – holding the office as a legal hub, a central space for people to go and meet their co-workers and their friends, for company culture to be reasserted, for purpose to be underlined, and for those people whose time we are asking for to know that it’s all actually worth it. Legal firms should seriously consider the benefits of the office before they cut into that overhead, weighing equally the need to keep budgets under review with the transformative agency that activated offices have on our wellbeing and business culture.
Plaintiffs Radiya Buchanan, Ann Dagrin and Lindsay Field, represented by Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, have filed a federal lawsuit against several Trump administration officials for actions taken by law enforcement in dispersing a crowd of protestors in Lafayette Park so that President Trump could attend a photo-op at a nearby church.
President Donald Trump, Attorney General William Barr, Defense Secretary Mark Esper, Secret Service Director James Murray, US Park Police Acting Chief Gregory Monahan and DC National Guard Commanding General William Walker, are each named as defendants in the case (no. 1:20-cv-01542). All are sued in both their official capacities and personal capacities, with the exception of President Trump, who is sued only in his official capacity.
In addition to the individuals named above, the lawsuit also names “John and Jane Does Nos. 1–50” as “members of the federal law enforcement agencies who were present in Lafayette Park on the evening of June 1, 2020, and authorized, planned, and participated in the violent attack.”
The lawsuit alleges Bivens damages, ultra vires conduct in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, and violations of the plaintiffs’ First, Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights.
In the introduction to the complaint, the plaintiffs’ attorneys describe the administration’s ordering of law enforcement to clear away protestors with tear gas and pepper balls as “a gross abuse of executive power that violated First Amendment free speech rights, Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable force, Fifth Amendment due process rights, and long-standing federal law prohibiting use of such military force on domestic targets.”
The case has not yet been assigned to a judge.
On Thursday, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) issued a fine of £64,046,800 to Lloyds Banking Group for failing to deliver fair treatment of mortgage customers.
The FCA said that Lloyds Bank, Bank of Scotland and The Mortgage Business (brands all owned by Lloyds Banking Group) did not obtain enough information to properly assess mortgage customers in payment difficulties or arrears, potentially delivering unfair treatment to more than a quarter of a million customers between 2011 and 2015.
Compounding the issue, cuts by the bank meant that most call handlers dealing with customers in mortgage arrears were new to their role and unable to consult more experienced staff.
Mark Steward, the FCA’s executive director of enforcement and market oversight, said in a statement: “Banks are required to treat customers fairly, even when those customers are in financial difficulties or are having trouble meeting their obligations.”
“Customers should still pay what is owed, but banks are obliged to treat their customers fairly when making new payment arrangements,” he continued, adding that other firms should “take notice” of the FCA’s actions and ensure fair treatment of their own customers.
A Lloyds Group spokesperson said: “We have contacted all customers who were affected between 2011 and 2015 to apologise and have already reimbursed all who were charged fees at the time. Customers do not need to take any action.”
Congratulations, you have survived the interview and been offered a job – now is the time to kick-start your legal career. Moving into the world of work may seem daunting; this might be your first ‘proper’ job since you graduated. Here are six top tips to ensure you are workplace ready, courtesy of Francine Ryan, senior lecturer in law and member of the Open Justice Centre at The Open University.
Will Rogers said, "You never get a second chance to make a first impression." So in the first few weeks of your new job, it is important to make a good impression. You need to present yourself as professional, dress appropriately, smile and have a positive attitude. Treat everyone with courtesy and politeness, remember and use people’s names. You will be given lots of different tasks to do, no matter how big or small the task is, make sure you do it to the best of your ability the rest of your team will be relying on you to be conscientious and diligent.
It is important to demonstrate you are reliable – be organised, be on time and meet deadlines. If you are someone who struggles with organisation, make sure you write everything down or make the most of free apps like Evernote or Post-it. Keep your diary up to date, check it each morning so you know if there are meetings planned for that day. Your time will not always be your own; you need to be flexible and be prepared to respond quickly if you are asked to work on a new matter.
If you are not sure about anything ask for clarification. Sometimes people feel nervous about asking questions, but it is much better to ask than to make assumptions and it will save you a lot of time in the long run. It is also important to listen! You need to concentrate on what is being said rather than passively hearing the message. Make notes to help you remember, as this will help you avoid any miscommunication and the need to ask unnecessary follow-up questions.
All through your professional life you will be learning, but never more so than in your first job. You have to learn how to manage your time, work with new colleagues, understand the IT system and the culture of the organisation. There may also be opportunities to further your education make sure you take advantage of any additional training. Sometimes it can feel overwhelming when you start a new job, but don’t worry, as you get used to the job you will start to feel more comfortable and the feeling will pass.
It is very likely that your work is going to be corrected and you are going to receive both positive and negative feedback. It is part of the learning process you are not going to get it right every time. It is never easy to take criticism, but don’t be defensive and try not to take it personally. Remember that the purpose of constructive feedback is to help you improve. Listen, take notes and respond positively.
COVID-19 has led to many people working remotely and in the future more of us could be working from home on a permanent basis. Technology is driving communication and work processes – employees are often contributing to projects from different locations and across different time zones, meaning there is a need to collaborate virtually. Working as part of a virtual team can create challenges, especially when you are new to an organisation. If you are not seeing your work colleagues in person, your ability to communicate effectively virtually is critical. Think carefully about what you write in emails, in conversations on platforms such as Microsoft Teams. What you write can be open to interpretation and you don’t want to create the wrong impression. If you are attending online meetings from home, think about what your colleagues will see in the background if you have your camera on. You want to be projecting a professional image, so even if you are working at home you should think about what you are wearing and the impression that will be create.
There is a lot to take in when you start a new job, so it is understandable if you feel a bit apprehensive, but embrace the opportunities, learn from others and enjoy the challenge. This is just the start of what hopefully will be a rewarding legal career.
The Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill cleared its first hurdle in the House of Commons by 231 votes to 16 against.
The Bill proposes significant changes to UK divorce law, most notably the removal of any need for a partner to prove that “adultery, unreasonable behaviour or desertion” has taken place to secure a divorce. Under current UK law, the only other way a person can obtain a divorce without a spouse’s consent is to have lived apart for five years.
The ability of a spouse to contest a divorce – which is invoked in only 2% of cases – would also be scrapped under this new legislation.
This potential shake-up of divorce law follows a high-profile case in 2018, wherein Tini Owens lost a legal battle to divorce her husband of 40 years because they had not lived apart for the required five year period.
In spite of the small rebellion from Tory lawmakers, with one decrying the “effective abolition of the marriage vow”, the Bill has generally been well-received. Sarah Kelly, partner in the family law department of Thomas Snell & Passmore, commented: “It is already best practice for family lawyers to try and keep the divorce process as amicable and non-confrontational as possible. It is hoped that the proposed bill will make it much easier for that to happen.”
The Bill has already been passed by the House of Lords, and it is possible that it will receive Royal assent within the week.
Legal education and training can sometimes seem to be focused on absorbing legal knowledge and developing specific legal skills, for example, advocacy or legal research. While such knowledge and skills are important, it is vital not to overlook other wider skills, such as empathy, which are valuable both in legal practice and in life generally. Emma Jones, Senior Lecturer in Law at the University of Sheffield, explains what makes empathy an invaluable skill for legal professionals.
Empathy is commonly understood as putting yourself in someone else’s shoes. In other words, imagining what another person is thinking and feeling. In fact, there appears to be two types of empathy. First, there is a cognitive form of empathy, where you use your thoughts to think from the perspective of someone else. Second, there an affective or emotional form of empathy, where you feel something of what you imagine that person is experiencing. The strongest forms of empathy are likely to combine the two – you have an emotional sensation but also remain aware that those emotions are not based on your own experience.
Having empathy is very helpful as a law student. For example, imagine you are working on a project in a group and starting to feel frustrated that one group-member isn’t contributing fully. Using empathy to think about why that individual is behaving in that way can help you to take a constructive approach to resolving the issue. It could lead to you having a positive conversation with that person and setting in place practical strategies to enable them to contribute more. Even if these don’t work, it can help you to manage your frustration and appreciate the circumstances that have led to that person’s behaviour.
[ymal]
More widely, it can help you when studying law, particularly case law, to connect with the human elements involved. It reminds you that behind every case report there are people whose lives may be affected financially, emotionally or in myriad other ways.
If you are thinking of going on to work in the legal profession, or undertaking any clinical legal education, empathy is also important. In fact, the Bar Standards Board’s Professional Statement for Barristers refers to the need to know how and where to demonstrate empathy (3.4). All legal professionals need to understand the role of empathy. This is partly because it is a valuable tool to assist in developing a strong relationship and rapport with your clients. It is also to ensure you are aware of when your feelings of affective or emotional empathy could start to contribute to a danger of over-stepping professional boundaries. In other words, when empathy changes to sympathy.
When selecting a new Supreme Court Justice, former US President Barack Obama also argued that empathy is an important quality for judges, because it enables them to understand the impact of justice upon individuals’ circumstances.
More broadly, throughout life, empathy is vital. It can equip you to deal with a wide range of people, such as work colleagues. It can also enhance your relationships with family and friends by helping you to understand and respect their viewpoint more.
All legal professionals need to understand the role of empathy.
In addition, some researchers on empathy have argued that it is necessary to act as the spark which motivates people into performing kind and compassionate acts for others. For law students and legal professionals, this could include volunteering to become involved in pro bono work (‘for the public good’) or campaigning on issues relating to social justice and fairness.
Even if you don’t feel like you’re a naturally empathetic person, there is evidence that empathy is a form of skill that can be taught and developed. A good starting point is to practice becoming more aware of your own and other people’s emotions. This can involve observing physical cues (a smile, a frown, hand movements) and also listening to their tone of voice. Building time into your schedule to reflect on your interactions with others, to think about the situation from the other person’s point of view and to consider how they experienced the situation, can also be helpful.
Overall, empathy is a vital skill and one which can be learnt and developed. Starting when studying law will not only help in the short term, but also be valuable after graduation, whether in your work as a legal professional, or in whatever other path you chose.
While a new conciliation platform has been created before the Paris Commercial Court, in order to deal with the very high number of claims filed by businesses against each other on the ground of non-performance due to COVID-19, the British Cabinet Office published on 7 May 2020 a guidance in which it encourages "responsible and fair behaviour is strongly encouraged in relation to (…) making, and responding to, force majeure, frustration, change in law, relief event, delay event, compensation event and excusing cause claims". Sylvie Gallage-Alwis and Gaëtan de Robillard, respective Partner and Associate at Signature Litigation, explore the implications of this new guidance.
Force majeure and COVID-19 are indeed two concepts that have often been seen together these past weeks, businesses being stuck when it came to manufacturing, delivering or paying for instance. Yet case law was not there yet, and the only decisions in France where COVID-19 was recognised as being a force majeure event were rendered in very specific contexts, such as immigration proceedings. Up until now, businesses were therefore notifying force majeure and enforcing their force majeure clauses without any concrete decision handed down in a commercial scope in France.
The order handed down in summary proceedings by the Presiding Judge of the Paris Commercial Court on 20 May 2020 in a dispute between Total Direct Energie ("TDE") and Electricité de France ("EDF") alongside Réseau de Transport d'Electricité ("RTE"), in the presence of the French Independent Electricity and Gas Association ("AFIEG") has now changed this.
Up until now, businesses were therefore notifying force majeure and enforcing their force majeure clauses without any concrete decision handed down in a commercial scope in France.
While the order of 20 May 2020 is particularly interesting as it relates to the system consisting of the Regulated Access to Historic Nuclear Electricity, it provides an interesting example of the recognition of COVID-19 as a case of force majeure. It also illustrates the attention that the courts give to the wording of contractual force majeure clauses and the discussions that would have taken place had the ground of the action been hardship (imprévision), a concept which was introduced into French Law in 2016.
The dispute concerns the terms of Article 10 of the framework agreement binding EDF to TDE, according to which force majeure refers to "an extraneous, irresistible and unforeseeable event making it impossible to perform the parties' obligations in reasonable economic conditions".
There is somewhat of a similarity between the words "in reasonable economic conditions" and hardship, which is defined as a change in unforeseeable circumstances rendering "the performance of the agreement excessively costly for one of the parties".
Based on the definition of force majeure of Article 10, the Judge considered that "the spread of the virus is obviously extraneous to the parties, is irresistible and was unforeseeable, as proven by the sudden nature and extent of its appearance". This "obvious" nature was not being discussed, which explains the brevity of the reasoning compared to the case law relating to the H1N1, Dengue Fever and other epidemics, which have not been recognised as force majeure cases by French Courts.
[ymal]
Here, it is the spread of the virus that is deemed a case of force majeure, not the governmental measures. This will probably trigger discussions in other cases, in particular when the question of knowing when the spread started and stopped.
TDE notably argued that the "governmental measures applied" would have triggered a "sudden decrease in consumption", creating a situation where it had to accept the delivery of ordered volumes of electricity and resell most of them at a loss due to the impossibility to store electricity.
As for EDF, it notably argued that the pandemic and the resulting decrease in energy consumption did not prevent TDE from performing its obligations regarding, in particular, the acceptance of the ordered volumes of electricity and the payment thereof.
Here, the Judge carried out a factual analysis to rule that "this results in [TDE] observing significant, immediate and permanent losses over a period of time beyond its control", further considering that the occurrence of a case of force majeure enables to "assume a disruption affecting prior economic conditions resulting in the occurrence of significant losses arising from the performance of the agreement".
Here, the Judge carried out a factual analysis to rule that "this results in [TDE] observing significant, immediate and permanent losses over a period of time beyond its control"
This reasoning can be interpreted as the implementation of a presumption according to which a case of force majeure necessarily leads to a more costly performance, the parties having to discuss the extent of the acceptable risk.
This case law shows that case-by-case analysis will be the norm when it comes to the interpretation of the contract. The review of the clauses is, therefore, a must do before relying on the now fashionable concept of force majeure. If no such clause is in the contract, businesses will have to refer to statutes and case law. This may change the whole outcome of the matter. Indeed, what if the EDF/TDE contract did not make any mention to the concept of "unreasonable economic circumstance"?
This decision also shows that there will be a case-by-case analysis when it comes to the impossibility to perform and on the economic impact of a performance, if the latter is possible. In this respect, interestingly, the parties have decided not to put forward the fact that their financial health was not endangered with the performance or non-performance of this contract. This encouraged the Judge to only focus on the contract itself and on its economic viability independently from any other consideration. One could question whether such approach is aligned with the guidance provided by both the French and British Governments which have asked businesses to act fairly, in a general way, and not just, contract per contract.
