Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
Here, Fred Pritzker discusses foodborne illnesses in the US, its causes, when litigation is on the table and whether regulations in this area are up to date or not. A must-read for those in the food industry.
Extent of Foodborne Illness in the United States and Its Causes
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that on an annual basis, foodborne pathogens result in 48 million illnesses, 128,000 hospitalizations and 3,000 deaths.
The vast majority of these cases are preventable. In fact, over the course of our 25 years practising in foodborne illness, we have never encountered an outbreak that was not the result of significant food safety violations.
These violations usually occur not because of a lack of food safety regulations, standard practices or company policies. They occur because employees are not properly trained and supervised, food safety systems are ignored, effective quality systems are not implemented, and management either willfully or negligently ignores clear signs of food safety violations.
Risk of Litigation for Food Companies
Unsafe food products are per se defective in virtually every state. Thus, litigation often centres on causation: whether the defective food product actually resulted in the plaintiff’s harm. This depends on highly technical issues involving epidemiology and microbiology including genetic proof through whole genome sequencing and related methods of comparing the genome of bacteria found in the defective product, stool or blood cultures from the plaintiff and other people sickened in the outbreak.
Because of the skill and experience of attorneys (plaintiff and defence) practising in this area along with the increasing scientific sophistication involved in proving defects and causation, most Foodborne Illness cases are settled prior to trial. Responsible food companies already the subject of recalls and administrative action prefer to avoid rekindling reputational harm associated with an adverse verdict. But some cynical companies, including very large processors, believe that reputational harm is short lived and therefore are willing to try cases. In my experience, this is unwise for one simple reason: jurors are food consumers and are unsympathetic to companies that sell food laced with faecal matter and pathogenic micro-organisms.
Are Food Safety Regulations up to Date?
For the most part, yes, particularly with the passage of the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA). However, the Trump administration has delayed implementation of the regulations associated with FSMA. Other problem areas include failure to classify certain common pathogens (including Salmonella) as per se adulterants. For example, the FDA classifies any level of most pathogenic E. coli along with Listeria monocytogenes as adulterants. In my view, many more common foodborne pathogens should be subject to the same “zero tolerance” standard.
Finally, I think federal regulations are desperately needed to protect against recurring outbreaks of foodborne illness associated with raw produce, particularly lettuce.
What Food Companies Ought to Be Doing to Protect Against Foodborne Illness Outbreaks
They should not assume that the mere existence of a robust food safety plan or the lack of prior outbreaks associated with their products somehow makes it unlikely that adulteration will occur in the future.
In some ways, this is akin to a psychological bias known as “risk compensation” which is often described as follows: “People will adjust their behaviour in response to the perceived level of risk, becoming more careful where they sense greater risk and less careful if they feel more protected.”
Food companies need to attack their assumptions and practices at every turn. They cannot assume that their safety plans are infallible, that workers will correctly implement and follow them and they absolutely cannot ignore data that even hints at the possibility of a problem. In the immortal words of Mike Tyson, “Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth."
Fred Pritzker
My name is Fred Pritzker. I’m the founder and president of the national food safety law firm, Pritzker Hageman. We represent individuals and families of people killed in foodborne illness outbreaks throughout the United States. Our verdicts and settlements on behalf of foodborne illness survivors include scores of million and multi-million dollar recoveries including the largest verdict in American history for an E. coli O157:H7 survivor, one of the largest verdicts for a child harmed by Salmonellosis and record recoveries for victims of Listeriosis.
If anyone had told you at the end of 2019 that the following year will see a global lockdown due to a pandemic causing thousands of people to die, you may have found it a little hard to believe. But, that is our reality, and even though the coronavirus crisis has been unprecedented, should we have expected governments across the world to be better prepared for such an event that will most likely be written in history?
Global Governance: What Is It Supposed to Achieve?
Global governance was initially implemented to draw on geopolitics and international relations, mainly honing in on defence, peace, trade and diplomatic relations. Being a movement towards global political cooperation, global governance is supposed to search for mutual answers and responses to problems which impact more than one jurisdiction and region.
In short, global governance is supposed to “provide global public goods – including catastrophic risk management, which puts in place measures to maximally reduce the likelihood and impact of an event which has the potential to cause the death of 1 billion people, globally -, peace and security, justice and mediation systems for conflict, functioning markets and unified standards for trade and industry[1].”
The World Health Organisation (WHO) is considered to play an essential role in the global governance of health and disease.
But with institutions of global governance, such as the United Nations, World Bank and World Health Organisation usually having limited power to enforce compliance, are they able to achieve what they are set out to accomplish? Global governance arrangements, in general, favour “flexibility over rigidity, prefer voluntary measures to binding rules and privilege partnerships over individual actions[2]”, and such partnerships and voluntary measures could quite be the ingredients that are causing global governance to fail.
What Went Wrong with COVID-19?
Let’s take our current pandemic as an example. The World Health Organisation (WHO) is considered to play an essential role in the global governance of health and disease. Global health governance requires “WHO’s leadership and effective implementation of their core global functions to ensure better effectiveness of all health actors, but achieving this global mission could be hampered by narrowing activities and budget reallocations from core global functions”[3] and the budget has been one of the factors that have seen the organisation falling short of meeting one their main goals: disease eradication and technical cooperation functions for emergencies.
Another reason behind WHO’s failure could be due to its slow response, which, of course, can be argued from a political point of view.
A lack of funding could be a strong reason. It’s estimated that USD 3.4 billion a year is needed to fund such “global functions” of WHO pandemic preparedness, but funds have fallen tragically short of this target, even following the 2014 Ebola epidemic[4]. But despite governments funding the WHO, even sometimes prioritising health sector loans above anything else, countries have never given WHO the independence, power or resources to enable the organisation to actually do what it has set out to accomplish.
Another reason behind WHO’s failure could be due to its slow response, which, of course, can be argued from a political point of view. The WHO had reason to suspect that COVID-19 could evolve into a pandemic as of last New Year’s Eve and began communicating with Chinese officials – although it is not clear to how frequent such communication took place. The new disease was reported, but WHO continued to repeat Beijing’s assurances by claiming there was nothing much to worry about.
Politics has gotten in the way of many things, and this pandemic may be one of them, however, not all blame falls onto a single international body.
Nonetheless, on 20 January 2020, the outbreak was declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern, as by then, other countries, such as Republic of Korea, Japan, Thailand and Singapore, had reported cases of coronavirus, and it is argued that precious weeks were lost before the start of a full-out effort to contain the spread of the disease[5]. Japan’s Deputy Prime Minister Taro Aso, for example, criticised the WHO’s reaction to the initial cases reported; he claimed the WHO may as well be renamed the ‘Chinese Health Organisation’ indicating the institution has grown too close to China and stated: “Early on, if the WHO had not insisted to the world that China had no pneumonia epidemic, then everybody would have taken precautions”, he said on 28 March. Politics has gotten in the way of many things, and this pandemic may be one of them, however, not all blame falls onto a single international body.
How Did Governments React?
A key issue here, that I have touched on previously in my article on whether Davos has actually achieved anything impactful over the years, is that for global organisations to make a difference, they need cooperation from governments. The WHO relies on its host States for information about conditions that might warrant a global public health response. In fact, learning from previous mistakes made with the Sars outbreak, the WHO made clear that such delays had serious consequences, which led China to change their law and promise to commit next time to ensure delays were not going to repeat a similar outbreak. Did China break their promise to do better?
The UK, too, appeared to showcase reluctance to act decisively with lockdowns and whether Boris Johnson and his government were too busy with Brexit or too slow to act is one aspect, but it seems, again, that speed and being well-equipped, medically and systematically, are the factors at play here.
Regardless, different countries have seen a different outcome and reaction to COVID-19. New Zealand has seen a minimal impact, which is seen to be due to Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s quick response to enforce lockdown at an early stage. Premature measures have worked to the country’s favour, and speed, it seems, is a factor. Despite criticisms of their government trying to hide initial reports of the virus[6], by March, China had control of the virus, leaving their Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian stating: “China’s signature strength, efficiency and speed in this fight has been widely acclaimed.” China, he added, set “a new standard for the global efforts against the epidemic.”
What about countries that are struggling to enforce such control? During the 2014–15 Ebola crisis, the United States assembled and led a coalition of dozens of countries to counter the spread of the disease, yet now, The Trump administration took a different leadership style, by halting funding to the WHO and initially struggling to enforce social distancing and relaying mixed messages about the disease[7]. With the US and its citizens standing up for their constitutional rights and thus their freedom, the US lacked the same level of control China had, therefore leaving some states to have a spike of coronavirus cases.
Most of the key decisions around lockdown and public health measures seem to have been decided and are being led at national level - including within EU member states where multinational institutions have moved slower than national governments.
And, despite the fact that UK government already had legislation at its disposal with the Public Health Act 1984 giving a range of powers to a range of authorities and the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 which, again, gives emergency powers, they still found themselves having the most coronavirus deaths across Europe. The UK, too, appeared to showcase reluctance to act decisively with lockdowns and whether Boris Johnson and his government were too busy with Brexit or too slow to act is one aspect, but it seems, again, that speed and being well-equipped, medically and systematically, are the factors at play here.
What Lessons Has COVID-19 Taught Global Governance?
We spoke to Liam McMonagle, Partner at Thorntons who touched on how in recent years, there has been a real difficulty in building international consensus around other global challenges, like climate change, and so some of the problems in joining-up national approaches to the coronavirus pandemic are unsurprising. “Even allowing for that, there does seem to be a very noticeable lack of cooperation verging on outright hostility and diplomatic tension between some countries”, Liam shares.
Most of the key decisions around lockdown and public health measures seem to have been decided and are being led at national level - including within EU member states where multinational institutions have moved slower than national governments. “We must hope for a greater degree of international cooperation as we move into the next chapter of this”, expands Liam. “The virus doesn’t confine itself to national boundaries and it is unlikely people will want to for long either, even if we need to use quarantine measures for a time. Until a medical solution is found, significant prevalence of the virus anywhere in the world will be an ongoing risk to all of us. Finding and rolling out a medical solution globally will depend on a high degree of international cooperation across many sectors, even if we are lucky enough to develop solutions here in the UK.”
Arguably, the global system for defeating new diseases failed with regard to COVID-19: if an epidemic was predictable, then a pandemic could have been preventable.
It seems here that the WHO needs more authority and power to enforce decisions. If the WHO had legal powers to enforce their advice on states, similar to the Geneva Convention, perhaps things would remain in better order and prevent another outbreak in the future. However, compliance is needed and all states need to abide by the rules and it is hard to construct a unilateral set of rules when governments and states follow different systems. Would the US, with socialism and capitalism rooted in its states, follow the same rules as communist China, for example? Problems could arise here and, as shown with Germany’s lack of compliance with the Geneva Convention of 1929 during the Second World War, international bodies need individual states and their governments to cooperate.
Arguably, the global system for defeating new diseases failed with regard to COVID-19: if an epidemic was predictable, then a pandemic could have been preventable. The WHO, alongside with governments across the world, should have played a central role in the detection and avoidance of a COVID-19 pandemic in the critical window of January 2020. With individual empowerment, increasing awareness of human security, institutional complexity, international power shifts and the liberal world political paradigm defining the future of global governance[8], the WHO alongside its international bodies and governments, need to transform how we design and manage authoritative health governance - domestically and globally.
Should global organisations have more authority when seeking out and sharing information?
As stated by Tom Pegram Associate Professor in Global Governance and Deputy Director of UCL Global Governance Institute: “Whether or not existing global governance configurations such as the UN and the WHO can be repurposed to address systemic global risks is an open question. This is not simply a call for more funding to the WHO or other intergovernmental bodies. Its dysfunctions are symptomatic of a broken global political system.”
Should global organisations have more authority when seeking out and sharing information? Such a pandemic demands the best science, researchers, resources and, most importantly, governance. Without the latter, the rest falls to pieces; states fail to efficiently report urgent matters, countries fail to enforce appropriate measures leaving humanity itself to be the one that ends up feeling the brunt of the lack of clarity, synergy and rapid response.
[1] https://globalchallenges.org/global-governance/
[2] https://www.nature.com/articles/palcomms201545
[3] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261610936_The_Global_Role_of_the_World_Health_Organization
[4] https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-is-a-failure-of-global-governance-now-the-world-needs-a-radical-transformation-136535
[5] https://www.justsecurity.org/69945/pandemics-and-the-need-for-global-governance/
[6] https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/2020-03-18/coronavirus-could-reshape-global-order
[7] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-52125039
[8] https://www.nature.com/articles/palcomms201545
On April 21, 2020, the DGCCRF (Directorate General for Competition, Consumer Affairs and Fraud Control), the French market surveillance authority, published the result of its investigation on digital platforms, and more specifically, their duty to inform. This investigation was conducted 2 years after the entry into force of new obligations in the European Union. Here are the lessons learnt after 73% of the controlled platforms were found non-compliant, analysed by Sylvie Gallage-Alwis and Lorène Massé, respective Partner and Paralegal at Signature Litigation.
Online selling, which is often referred to as electronic commerce or e-commerce, is the exchange of goods and services between two parties via electronic networks, in particular the internet. It is a specific type of selling that refers to all commercial transactions carried out from the website of a seller or through emails exchanged between potential co-contracting parties.
Whilst originally online selling referred to websites dedicated to creating business relations between professionals, in particular for calls for bids (B2B), its definition now extends to several other types of platforms, including those connecting professionals and consumers (B2C) and those connecting consumers, individuals and non-professionals, who want to sell their goods or services directly between themselves (C2C).
[Online selling] is a specific type of selling that refers to all commercial transactions carried out from the website of a seller or through emails exchanged between potential co-contracting parties.
The main European Regulation in the field of e-commerce and online platforms is Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of June 8, 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market, which created a regulatory framework for business transactions on the internet.
This Directive was strictly transposed in France in law no. 2004-575 of June 21, 2004 for Trust in the Digital Economy, which defines electronic commerce as "the economic activity whereby a person offers or provides at a distance and electronically services or goods".
On October 7, 2016, the French Digital Republic Law no. 2016-1321 was enacted, whereby its Article 49 created Article L. 111-7 of the French Consumer Code. This Article makes a distinction between two types of activities of operators of online platforms (search engines, marketplaces and collaborative platforms): (i) listing or classification and (ii) bringing different parties together for the conclusion of an agreement for the sale or exchange of goods, services or content.
Article L. 111-7 of the French Consumer Code lists the information to be provided by operators of online platforms to consumers in a "faithful, clear and transparent" way, including:
[ymal]
Decree no. 2017-1434 of September 29, 2017, which came into force on January 1, 2018, specifies the conditions of the application of this Article, depend on the nature of the activity of operators of online platforms. It provides that they "must indicate in a special section the listing, delisting and classification conditions", this section must be "directly and easily accessible from all the pages of the website" and contain the following information:
The DGCCRF has conducted a survey targeting 44 online platforms to check their conformity to the above information obligations, concluding that there was a "high rate of non-conformities" with 32 out of the 44 companies failing to comply with the Decree.
According to the operators of online platforms, the Decree entered into force only recently (2018), hence not giving sufficient time to become compliant. There is also no information on the applicable regulations making it difficult for them to know what to do exactly.
The DGCCRF have argued that the new provisions containing the new obligations had been the subject of a very broad consultation and of an information letter issued by the DGCCRF reminding operators of the applicable obligations.
According to the operators of online platforms, the Decree entered into force only recently (2018), hence not giving sufficient time to become compliant.
Some of the concepts of the new obligations are also the source of interpretation difficulties.
For example, the section referred to in the Decree, which states that operators must include information on the listing, delisting and classification conditions, has led businesses to consider that their general terms and conditions could act as the "section" or that two different sections could exist. The DGCCRF answered that "the concept of section is defined as a specific section guaranteeing that the information is directly and easily accessible to the consumer".
Several operators are unwilling to precisely define this criterion as they consider that doing so would be tantamount to revealing one of their trade secrets. Indeed, the use of algorithms is a major aspect of the operation of online platforms.
The DGCCRF explains that for consumers to trust the digital economy, it is necessary to provide them with objective information, including regarding the definition of the classification criteria used and the indication of the main parameters applied, always in accordance with the principle of confidentiality of trade secrets.
All the above non-conformities have given rise to the application by the DGCCRF of 21 administrative police measures, 8 warnings and 4 reports of administrative fines. While most platforms quickly defined and implemented the appropriate corrective measures, many of them are still yet to take action. It will now be interesting to see whether the DGCCRF conducts another similar survey next year and whether the applied penalties will become stricter.
National law firm Slater and Gordon has announced its intention to institute remote working policies on a permanent basis, and will not be renewing the lease on its London office when it ends in September.
Slater and Gordon will carry out a review of all of its nationwide properties, also due to finish by September. The intention for the firm’s 200 London employees is to either move to a smaller office that is more suitable for hosting meetings or continue to work remotely for the indefinite future.
Speaking with The Law Society Gazette, chief executive David Whitmore said that the move towards a smart working model has been prompted by its observed success during the COVID-19 pandemic.
“We are not doing this to be different, we want as much as possible to be business as usual,” he said. “A lot of people have liked the way they have been able to operate and we have been listening to them.”
Slater and Gordon employs 2,000 staff worldwide. There is no definitive answer yet on how staff in other locations may be affected by wider adoption of remote working policies, but Whitmore stated that offices are likely to run at 35% capacity while social distancing measures remain in place.
To assist those working from home, staff will be supplied with multiple monitors and comfortable office equipment if required.
The official Bar Council Pupillage Fair has been given the green light for 2020 and is set to go entirely online this year with more students than ever expected to attend as a result of the move to a virtual format.
The Fair, now in its fifth year, looked set to be cancelled, denying hundreds of students the chance to find out more about a career as a barrister from chambers and specialist associations. However, the Bar Council plans to put the whole fair online on Saturday 17 October 2020 to give exhibitors and students access to the event.
The Bar Council’s Pupillage Fair is the only recruitment fair run by the Bar, for the Bar of the future. Over the past five years, it has grown significantly in size and become a key fixture in the profession’s calendar. At last year’s Pupillage Fair, the Bar Council welcomed over 800 aspiring barristers from throughout England and Wales, 80 exhibitors and hundreds of volunteers from across the Bar.
Malcolm Cree CBE, Chief Executive, said: “The Pupillage Fair is part of the Bar Council’s wider commitment to ensuring fair access to the Bar, regardless of background, and provides chambers and other organisations an opportunity to invest in the future of the profession. Now, more than ever, it is essential to demonstrate to aspiring barristers that the profession is committed to providing opportunities for pupillage, and that they will be able to build a career at the Bar in the post-coronavirus era.
“It’s essential to embrace technology and modern ways of working in the current crisis. By going entirely online we can diversify what we can offer to both students and exhibitors and open the Fair to more students than ever. ”
The ripple effect of COVID-19 presents a myriad of financial challenges to business owners, and bankruptcy attorney and trustee Howard Ehrenberg of SulmeyerKupetz, implores owners to review specific constraints and limitations in debt and loan documents to avoid defaulting. He explains, “Owners need to take advantage of credit relief options, such as forbearance, deferrals, moratoriums, extensions, debt restructuring/forgiveness. This gives businesses a runway to assess cash, extend payables and identify other sources of liquidity.”
What financial challenges are businesses currently facing during this unprecedented time?
Many businesses have seen a complete shutdown of their revenue streams. Those that have not had a complete shutdown have had their revenue cut to the point where they cannot operate profitably. However, at the same time, debt, rent, payroll are all due and owing.
What restrictions are making it further complicated for businesses facing debt?
Businesses are forced by law to shut completely unless they are an essential service or are in a jurisdiction that is in the process of ”reopening”. Even where a business can legally operate, the safety of employees and customers create extreme complications.
What steps can businesses proactively take to mitigate fiscal challenges?
There are a number of steps which businesses can take. First, preserve cash. Contact vendors, landlords and others to negotiate extensions of time to may payments. Apply for all government assistance including the PPP loan program administered by the SBA. Consider whether a claim can be made to the insurance carrier for business interruption. Consult with professionals before it is too late.
What constraints and limitations are often presented in debt documents and contracts?
Most contacts do not have provisions that would forgive or even defer the obligation to pay due to a pandemic. Thus, this is the time to become creative and seek to negotiate alternate arrangements.
Is there anything businesses can do to work around these limitations?
Many jurisdictions have imposed moratoriums on evictions and foreclosures. Many courts are not accepting new cases. These realities can give a business some breathing room.
What levers can be pulled to extend runway?
Prepare a budget to show your exact situation. Have your lease, credit agreements and other contracts reviewed by a professional to look for leverage points.
What is the best way for businesses to manage relationships with stockholders during this time?
Transparency. This will end, but the relationship with stakeholders will continue, so it is imperative to be open and honest.
What impact has ‘force majeure’ had on companies?
There is little evidence that this provision is being honoured by landlords, banks or others to forgive or defer debt payments. It is likely that the concept will lead to litigation, but for now, it is not a concept that can be relied upon for immediate relief.
On 18th May 2020, two court centres, the Old Bailey and Cardiff Crown Court, reopened with novel arrangements in place for a very limited number of jury trials to resume or start, as the Criminal Justice System tentatively attempts to get back to work as coronavirus lockdown is eased. A handful of other courts are being health and safety checked to follow suit, but the process will necessarily be slow and cautious, and the resumption of normal service with all courts sitting will take many months, while the backlog of jury trials (already counted in thousands) builds up exponentially. The reality for many practitioners and some chambers, therefore, is that real financial hardship will deepen; being self-employed, with little financial help available, some may not survive. With depressing inevitability, such hardship is bound to affect more adversely law students, pupils and junior tenants coming from non-traditional backgrounds, and the drive to widen equality and diversity in the profession - and ultimately the judiciary - will be set back.
Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) and state-educated barristers will be hit doubly hard – they are more likely to do publicly funded work and, by virtue of their socio-economic background, already face greater financial pressures.
A recent Bar Council survey revealed that over half of all barristers who responded believe that without financial aid they could not survive for more than six months, over three-quarters could not survive for more than a year. The picture is worse at the publicly funded Bar – a third feel that they cannot survive for more than three months, 89% for more than a year; 92% of criminal barristers expect financial hardship as a result of the crisis. Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) and state-educated barristers will be hit doubly hard – they are more likely to do publicly funded work and, by virtue of their socio-economic background, already face greater financial pressures. With law and BPTC students having exams disrupted, pupillage interviews postponed, pupillages deferred and uncertainty caused by chambers over recruitment and financial awards, those from non-traditional, socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds, again, have a steeper mountain to climb than those who can rely on others for financial support to weather the storm.
The financial fragility of practitioners trying to survive in a Criminal Justice System that was already, before the crisis, at breaking point and working in a court estate that is literally falling apart, is itself deeply worrying
Add to that gloomy picture the difficulties of those planning to return from maternity leave, primary carers and those home-schooling children (mainly women) and those having to self-isolate because of disability or vulnerability (or living with someone with vulnerability), the incentive to come to or remain at the publicly funded Bar is diminishing to a point where many are considering giving up. Retention is already a problem for many sets of chambers, where secondments at salary-paying law firms and government agencies often lead to practitioners leaving the Bar for the private sector. Some just leave the profession altogether. The financial fragility of practitioners trying to survive in a Criminal Justice System that was already, before the crisis, at breaking point and working in a court estate that is literally falling apart, is itself deeply worrying, but if its long term effect is to undermine recent modest advances in equality and diversity at the Bar, the profession and the Justice System will be much the poorer for it, not only in terms of talent and experience, but also in the public’s faith in the system.
The problem at the publicly funded Bar is acknowledged by the senior judiciary. The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Burnett, addressing the Parliamentary Constitution Committee on 13th May, highlighted some of his concerns about the future of the profession: “As for the rates of criminal legal aid, my concern is that for the system to operate effectively: there has to be a vibrant, independent publicly funded criminal profession. The availability and spread of solicitors in the legal aid crime world has diminished. That really does worry me and worries me more at the minute because of the potential lack of viability of many high street firms in the current environment. The same is true of the Bar. There is a real concern that as a result of what is going on at the moment, quite apart from the predations on income over the past 10 years, there will be fewer barristers likely to do crime emerging from this crisis than there were before. Clearing up backlogs across the system will only work if the legal profession which underpins the criminal courts remains vigorous and survives in its current form through the emergency. That really does concern me.”
As a profession, the Bar needs to meet these present challenges head-on, but it must also not lose sight of the fundamental need to make itself more inclusive, diverse and representative.
The priority for the profession must be to alleviate immediate financial hardship: many young practitioners have reported that they do not qualify for Covid-19 loans, for instance, if they do not have three years of accounts, and that even with loans they will not survive if their source of income dries up because of a trial system disrupted for many months. The Bar Council has done much to lobby the government to extend schemes to alleviate financial hardship and the Bounce Back Loan will help many, as will the ability to obtain testing for Covid-19 as a key worker through the Bar Council. Many chambers are trying to renegotiate rents with their landlords; those chambers that can afford it have policies in place to help the junior end, for example, guaranteeing income for pupils and new tenants, but, again, sets doing predominantly publicly funded work are themselves struggling to pay their rent and staff costs. The financial pressures on these chambers may affect the number of pupillages awarded and chambers will need to be careful not to make conservative choices in their selection of pupils and tenants as a result. Ongoing negotiations over fees between the profession and government must be ramped up to ensure that an independent, publicly funded profession can survive. It is evident that the Criminal Bar Association and Circuits are working hard to achieve this and the Lord Chancellor, Robert Buckland (himself a former criminal barrister) is acutely aware of the problems: he should be encouraged to take a determined stance with the Treasury if he wishes to stave off calamity.
The crisis may have some unexpected beneficial consequences – more flexible working, virtual hearings, less travel, Judges taking into account a barrister’s responsibilities as a primary carer when fixing cases or determining the length of the court day
As a profession, the Bar needs to meet these present challenges head-on, but it must also not lose sight of the fundamental need to make itself more inclusive, diverse and representative. Once that goal is achieved in the profession, the judiciary - often caricatured as male, pale and stale - will become more representative and, importantly, will appear to be more relevant and in touch with society. There are a number of ways that chambers are working towards that goal. Red Lion Chambers, a traditional criminal chambers set in terms of its publicly funded defence and prosecution work, implements paradigm training provided by the Bar Council E&D policy unit and has a range of policies that encourages and supports law students and aspiring barrister pupils to make the long and often daunting journey to the Bar. Its outreach partnership with the East London Business Alliance, working with the University of East London, and the establishment of a mentoring scheme, are designed to give students the confidence to pursue what is still viewed as an unattainable and unaffordable career. The Kalisher Trust, the Bar’s only charity which encourages students from non-traditional backgrounds to pursue a career at the Bar, has a full range of education, outreach and mentoring schemes, in addition to offering internships and scholarships and is considering new ways, such as a sponsored mini-pupillage scheme, to promote its aims. But all chambers, right across the sector, should be doing more.
[ymal]
The Inns of Court are striving to help. Some financial assistance is available from the Barristers' Benevolent Association and the Inns have established hardship funds in response to the financial crisis – Middle Temple has asked all members to donate something to the fund. In addition, Middle provides online assistance to student members and pupils, ramping up online qualifying sessions, continuing education and pupil advocacy courses, and is holding virtual interviews for all students applying for substantial, means tested, scholarship awards. There is a palpable desire to ensure that a career at the Bar should be open to all.
The crisis may have some unexpected beneficial consequences – more flexible working, virtual hearings, less travel, Judges taking into account a barrister’s responsibilities as a primary carer when fixing cases or determining the length of the court day; and the concept of wellbeing is slowly taking root. But at a time when the future looks bleak, the profession needs to re-examine its approach to access, recruitment and retention, and redouble its efforts to promote diversity in the profession if it is to be truly representative of the community it serves.
Ed Vickers QC
Red Lion Chambers
Trustee of The Kalisher Trust
Ed Vickers QC is a silk at Red Lion Chambers, specialising in complex crime, fraud and related white-collar crime cases. He is also a trustee and past treasurer of the Kalisher Trust. See more here: https://www.redlionchambers.co.uk/barrister/edmund-vickers-qc/ or www.redlionchambers.co.uk
Volkswagen has lost a landmark legal battle over compensation for plaintiff Herbert Gilbert, a motorist who bought a second-hand Volkswagen minivan fitted with emissions-cheating software.
Germany’s federal court of justice, the nation’s highest civil court, ruled that the company must take back Gilbert’s car and offer compensation of €28,257.74.
The ruling marks the latest development in the ‘Dieselgate’ scandal, in which Volkswagen was found to have installed software in its vehicles to artificially lower emissions of nitrogen oxides while they were being tested. Under normal conditions, the output of harmful pollutants from the vehicles was much higher than indicated during tests.
By Volkswagen’s reckoning, these devices have affected roughly 11 million cars globally. Since the scandal broke in 2015, the company has paid more than €30 billion in fines, compensation and buyback schemes.
The recent ruling also sets a benchmark for 60,000 similar cases, which the carmaker now intends to settle.
In a statement on Monday, Volkswagen said: “For the majority of the 60,000 pending cases, this ruling provides clarity as to how the [court] assesses essential questions in German diesel proceedings.”
“Volkswagen is now seeking to bring these proceedings to a prompt conclusion in agreement with the plaintiffs. We will therefore approach the plaintiffs with the adequate settlement proposals."
Fortunately, being the injured party may entitle you to a right to recover fair financial compensation for the collision's damages. Below are some tips in dealing with damages from a car accident:
Unless you're a lawyer yourself, you probably don't know what “damages” mean. In the legal sense, damages are defined as the estimated monetary compensation that you can recover due to the injuries and losses you've suffered as a result of an accident.
To collect these damages, you usually have to file an injury claim with the responsible party's insurance company. Besides, under the law, the person at fault for the accident should be held accountable for compensating the offended party for the losses they've incurred.
If you want to ensure that you’re able to maximise your compensation, the following are the damages you should get familiar with:
To collect these damages, you usually have to file an injury claim with the responsible party's insurance company.
If you have no idea how to settle your damages, you should hire an attorney to handle your car accident claim on your behalf. When you have a legal professional on your side, you can get proper advice about your situation and available legal options. Also, they can evaluate your case, negotiate a fair settlement, protect you from the dirty tactics of the insurance company, and make sure you're represented aggressively, so you get the compensation you deserve.
That said, find an attorney who can protect your rights and interests. For example, if you've been injured in a car accident in Houston, look for someone specializing in personal injury cases in that area. With several attorneys to choose from, it's best to conduct a little research to help narrow down your options. You can ask for some referrals from your loved ones or check some prospects online. You can also read some reviews online to know the performance of your candidates in handling personal injury cases.
By doing these things, you can find the right legal representative for your case.
Whether you're negotiating with the responsible party's insurance company or filing a personal injury lawsuit claim in court, the presentation of evidence is vital in a personal injury trial. That's because it's one of the best ways to prove that someone else's negligence caused your injuries. This means that the more pieces of evidence you’re able to gather, the higher your chance will be to recover just and fair compensation for your damages.
[ymal]
To do this, you shouldn't forget to take images of the accident area, as well as your injuries and the damages to your vehicle. Also, find time to gather some critical information from your witnesses. Lastly, keep a copy of the police report and your medical records to strengthen the authenticity of your claim.
After you've sustained injuries from the car accident, it shouldn’t take you long to file your claim and recover the compensation you deserve. This is especially true if you're elevating your case to the court, where the statute of limitations or deadlines apply.
Thus, if you don't want your time to run out and waive your right to get compensation for the damages, you should file your case as soon as possible. Know the applicable statute of limitations in your area and have your attorney check it. In doing so, you can make the most out of your chances to get compensated for the damages caused by the accident.
Getting involved in a car accident can be a traumatic experience. Aside from injuries and property damages, you have to deal with other damages, such as lost wages and even pain and suffering. Therefore, if you're looking to settle these damages without hassle, keep these tips in mind and hire the best personal injury lawyer. That way, you can get a legal outcome in your favor.
Solicitors at City of London firm Osborne Clarke will see their salaries reduced by 7% from the beginning of June, in what the company has called an “unfortunate but prudent decision.” The reduction will last for a period of 11 months.
Staff, partners and trainees earning more than £30,000 annually will all be affected by the cuts, though their other benefits will remain untouched. Pension contributions will continue to be paid according to their unadjusted salaries.
A minimum cap of £30,000 will also be placed on the salaries of those affected. In cases where an employee would earn less than this threshold after pay cuts will instead receive a higher percentage of their salary.
The firm has also stated that if it reaches its financial target for 2020/21, it will then begin to repay employees for the salary reductions incurred by this emergency move.
[ymal]
A spokesperson from Osborne Clarke outlined the precise cuts being made. “We announced in April that UK partners would defer 75% of their special draws while also proceeding with long-planned additional capital contributions. From 1 June, they will also be subject to a 10% cut in their monthly draws (essentially their salary) for 11 months.”
“Following consultation, we are also taking the unfortunate but prudent decision to reduce some staff pay by 7% from 1st June [2020] for 11 months,” they continued. “The partnership would once again like to thank all our employees who are continuing to work so hard both for the firm and our clients during this very uncertain time.”
