Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
Mark Lello, Partner & Notary Public at Parker Bullen LLP, shares his opinions with Lawyer Monthly.
In normal times, an intricate web of advisers has always surrounded a business. Suppliers, customers and professional services providers - let alone friends and family - all added vital knowledge and insight. For the time being, at least, COVID-19 has stopped all that. The formal and informal advice and support network has all but collapsed.
It is only when we lose it that we realise the importance of such valuable business osmosis - it informed, updated and guided our thinking.
Many business issues were resolved informally. The fine print at the bottom of a contract was ignored. Before COVID-19 a simple phone call to apologise and say a shipment would be delayed by a couple of days normally resolved a problem. Not anymore.
When we finally emerge from lockdown, the business environment waiting for us is likely to be very different, and far colder. It has become a very lonely place running a business right now, and in my experience few business owners are prepared for what happens next.
It is only when we lose it that we realise the importance of such valuable business osmosis - it informed, updated and guided our thinking.
Looking on the bright side, while the pandemic has brought personal and professional pain to many business owners, it has also often delivered insight and understanding of how business can work differently.
During lockdown many businesspeople will have been doing some soul searching and hypothesising about different ways of working long term. The problem is they often had no one to discuss this with. For example I have recently had discussions about whether a business actually needs multiple offices or whether some staff might voluntarily work from home. Similarly new business practices have raised questions about staffing and whether certain roles are still necessary given newly discovered ways of working.
This is where the legal profession can step in, as one of the key skill we often overlook is that of an unbiased business consultant. And, while I would hope all solicitors carry out their work with empathy, we also have the ability to address thorny issues that other consultants may find uncomfortable, or just lack experience with.
At the heart of a lawyer’s job is risk, both managing it and resolving problems when issues occur. What businesses need now is help and informed guidance on how the virus puts their business at risk, be it in employment, health and safety, contracts or rent negotiations, to name but a few.
As a consultant it is not your job to necessarily resolve these issues, but to help identify them and suggest solutions, which may, but not always, be legal in nature.
[ymal]
The essential concept is to spot clients’ needs much earlier in their business life cycle than when the symptoms show. In a normal legal environment this may be pre-emptively addressing issues such as trade mark registrations, shareholders' agreements, or terms of business. This can in turn can have a bearing on how and when one spends one’s discretionary ‘marketing’ time.
But in a COVID-19 environment our risk management skills could mean identifying issues that need addressing immediately and could save a business from insolvency.
The importance of being proactive when offering ‘consultancy’ services is well attested. On a personal note it is worthwhile citing an example to show how addressing a problem early without the need for legal intervention can prevent business failure.
Practicing law on the edge of Salisbury Plain has meant that as a firm we have always supported military personnel with their legal issues, one of the most important being employment. Many ex-military personnel choose franchising as a career, both as franchisors and franchisees because the packaged business model offers opportunities to grow a business or provide a structure that gives a novice business owner all they need.
However, our work with the British Franchise Association shows that franchisors often run out of cash between 18 months and 2 years following the launch of their network. The core issue being that both franchisors and franchisees typically lack an understanding of cash flow management.
Rather than being called in to pick up the pieces after the problem becomes irreconcilable we have found that proactively contacting franchisors to discuss their business can unearth issues including refinancing where necessary.
The importance of being proactive when offering ‘consultancy’ services is well attested.
In the COVID-19 environment I would almost guarantee that similar calls to your clients would unearth concerns that otherwise would not be addressed until after lockdown, and potentially too late to resolve.
‘Food chain hierarchy’ matters in business and having a solicitor support your negotiations can help.
Unfortunately I fear that the collective harmony that we have witnessed over recent months may well vanish when we emerge from lockdown. Broken contracts will be seen as a quick way to bolster a balance sheet and I fear a significant increase in litigation.
Empty bank balances will spark litigation. Big fish further up the food chain are already acting to bolster their cash flow by holding smaller companies to account, to contracts which they have plainly been unable to fulfil. Few predominantly small to medium sized business are prepared for what could be a deluge of litigation claims against them.
Protected claims may be a necessary step for certain businesses, especially given that the limitation period of six years for contracts will still start immediately, regardless of the fact that the Courts will have a backlog of cases when they reopen.
Pre-emptive discussions with litigation funders may also be necessary as business cash flows may not necessarily be able to support prolonged and expensive cases.
How you charge for your services will depend on a company’s specific circumstances. A revenue stream based on consultancy alone is unlikely to be successful but in the current market offering a helping hand could reap short and long term business benefits. Even before the pandemic, my experience was that offering some level of business consultancy for free was commercially beneficial.
This pandemic has put our clients, businesses, homes and health at risk. How we react to their situations now will have long term implications to our standing in the future. In these dark days, this really is our moment to shine.
It’s your responsibility to do everything in your power to keep people safe. Here are some tips on how to protect your clients and employees while social distancing.
During this time, it's wise to use online resources to get things done. Instead of summoning clients to the office, try sending a mobile notary to collect signatures from your client’s home or place of business. Reputable companies like Superior Notary Services make the process easy and reliable, and your clients will thank you for making their lives a little easier.
Meeting with a potential client can put both parties at risk, and if the client decides not to move forward, that risk was all for nothing. It might be best to only take in-person meetings with people who you know are ready to move forward. Instead of meeting with consultations in person, use a video call platform instead. This gives you the opportunity to safely screen somebody in advance. There are a number of different video chat options you can use, including Zoom, Facebook, and Skype.
It might be best to only take in-person meetings with people who you know are ready to move forward.
The more people in the office, the more likely someone is to get people sick. It's best to take every precaution possible. Even when offices open up again, you don't have to have everybody physically at the office.
Most law offices have learned how to operate with a majority, if not all, of their staff working from home. When things reopen, you don't have to force everybody to come back right away. Try an alternative schedule. This means half of the employees will come into the office while the other half works from home. Alternate the schedule every week.
By using this approach, fewer people will be in the office at one time. This decreases the odds of spreading anything. Use the alternative schedule for at least a couple of months after the pandemic is over. It can minimise damage in the case of another outbreak, and your employees will likely appreciate the flexibility to continue working partly from home.
Before the pandemic, you may have enjoyed meeting clients at coffee shops or restaurants. But it's not as safe as it used to be to go to public places. Instead, make a point to only conduct in-person meetings at your office.
[ymal]
There are still people at your office. But you have complete control over the sanitation practices. There are also fewer people in your office than there would be in public. You won't have to take public transportation to get to the meeting spot, either.
In a couple of months, you can reexamine the situation to determine if it’s safe to meet at your favourite places again.
To keep people safe, you need to implement new health-screening procedures at the office for essential employees or clients who need to come in. People who are experiencing signs of the virus, even if they haven’t tested positive, should work from home.
You should also instil mandatory rules at the office to encourage people to stay safe. Put up reminders for people to wash their hands often. Make hand sanitisers and masks readily available. These new procedures should remain in place even when this pandemic ends. Maintain safe practices in case of another outbreak in the future.
People still need law service both during and after the pandemic. To keep clients coming in so your business can remain profitable, you need to do everything in your power to keep those clients safe. Do your best to show your customers that you don’t just value their legal needs and the revenue they bring to your business. You also value their health and safety above all else.
In a statement to Rolling Stone on Monday, a representative of Grubman Shire Meiselas & Sacks confirmed that it had been the victim of a cyberattack.
“We have notified our clients and our staff”, the representative said. “We have hired the world’s experts who specialize in this area, and we are working around the clock to address these matters.”
Variety reported last week that the hacker group “REvil”, or “Sodinokibi”, claimed responsibility for the attack. The group also claimed to have stolen 756 gigabytes of sensitive data. Personal correspondence, contracts, nondisclosure agreements, phone numbers and email addresses are allegedly among the stolen data.
The firm’s past and current clients include a great number of high-profile celebrities. REvil has named several as victims in the attack, including Lady Gaga, Madonna, Nicki Minaj, Bruce Springsteen, Christina Aguilera, Mariah Carey, Cam Newton, Bette Midler, and numerous other individuals.
[ymal]
The Grubman Shire Meiselas & Sacks webpage is effectively down, displaying only its logo, as the firm has entered high-security mode.
Emsisoft threat analyst Brett Callow said in a statement to Rolling Stone that the hackers will likely release the sensitive information they have stolen, potentially in instalments, if the firm does not comply with their demands.
“Attacks on law firms are particularly concerning due to the sensitivity of the information they hold”, he noted.
The lord chief justice announced on Monday that jury trials will recommence in the UK from 18 May onwards, with social distancing measures in place as “special arrangements to maintain the safety of all participants and the jury”.
These arrangements will see proceedings spread between two courtrooms to enable journalists, the public and parties to the trial to maintain safe distance.
Jurors will also sit between 11am and 3pm – reducing their hours and enabling them to avoid the daily rush hour.
The new trials “will be conducted under the same legal standards and procedures as before the COVID-19 emergency, with 12 jurors”, a shift in policy from both lord chief justice Baron Burnett of Maldon and the justice secretary, who previously gave their support to cutting juries down to 7 members.
“It is important that the administration of justice continues to function whenever it is possible in an environment which is consistent with the safety of all those involved,” Baron Burnett said in a statement. He also noted that the first courts where fresh juries could be sworn in would include the Old Bailey in London and Cardiff Crown Court.
[ymal]
Justice secretary Robert Buckland added: “I am extremely grateful to the lord chief justice, the wider judiciary, legal professions, court staff and colleagues from across the criminal justice system for their determination and resolve in the discussions to get us to this point.”
This news follows Boris Johnson’s announcement that UK coronavirus laws will be updated on Wednesday, making unnecessary public gatherings and leaving home “without reasonable excuse” illegal. Court proceedings will be exempt from this rule.
In February, before the COVID-19 pandemic shut down the UK, the National Audit Office declared the NHS ‘seriously financially unstable’. Yet, this pandemic has shown that the Government is willing to and can act quickly to introduce new legislation in a crisis situation. Once we move away from the peak of the crisis, the Government must ensure the laws in place to protect our health service are serving their purpose. This should begin with a review of the funding of major trauma treatment and the Injury Cost Recovery scheme (ICR). The current means of funding provides one of the most glaring examples of how a simple review of existing legislation could provide a financial boost to the NHS, rather than lining the pockets of the insurance industry.
The legal duty for the insurance industry to pay the healthcare costs of individuals involved in road traffic accidents dates back to the Road Traffic Act 1930.
In my role as Head of Major Trauma at Moore Barlow, I have repeatedly witnessed the exemplary treatment provided to victims who have suffered life-changing injury as a result of a major trauma. However, it is also true that NHS Trust’s are facing significant financial pressures that has affected patient care. At Moore Barlow, we are committed to a patient-centred approach, and it for this reason I have dedicated the past five years to campaigning for NHS reform. It is also why our firm set up the UK’s first major trauma service in collaboration with the NHS. The service identifies the needs of a patient at the outset to ensure that clients are able to move onto the right care pathway and secure appropriate rehabilitation support as soon as possible.
However, in the 17 years following the introduction of the Health and Social Care Act, the scheme has not been reviewed and no longer meets the objectives the law set out to achieve.
The funding of major trauma treatment is a pertinent example of how, without review, current legislation is contributing to the NHS’s existing financial problems. The legal duty for the insurance industry to pay the healthcare costs of individuals involved in road traffic accidents dates back to the Road Traffic Act 1930. More recently, the Health and Social Care Act 2003 refined the insurers’ obligation to allow for the recovery of NHS charges in all cases where people claim and receive injury compensation. This regulation, which came into force in 2007 as the NHS Injury Costs Recovery (ICR) scheme, was designed so that the NHS should not have the burden of paying for the treatment of patients injured by an insured third party. The aims of ICR were laudable and the intent was to maximise the funds available to NHS trusts to treat trauma patients.
The latest statistics available, from a 2010 National Audit Office report, estimated the cost of trauma treatment to be £300-400 million a year.
However, in the 17 years following the introduction of the Health and Social Care Act, the scheme has not been reviewed and no longer meets the objectives the law set out to achieve. The current cap on costs recovery is too low and has not kept pace with medical costs and inflation. This has resulted in the unintended consequence of our NHS footing the bill for trauma treatment. With the coronavirus epidemic having significantly stretched the NHS’s resources further, there needs to be an urgent review of whether the ICR scheme is fulfilling its intended purpose as set out in Health and Social Care Act 2003. The current regulation is a barrier to the NHS being sustainably funded long term.
The pandemic has highlighted the unbalanced nature of the relationship even further.
The latest statistics available, from a 2010 National Audit Office report, estimated the cost of trauma treatment to be £300-400 million a year. From 2018-19, the last fully reported financial year, the NHS recouped £200 million from the Injury Costs Recovery scheme. Factoring in how medical costs have risen above inflation since 2010, a saving of £200 million to the NHS is a very conservative estimate. Money that could be used to buy ventilators, tests or whatever equipment is needed to future-proof the resources of the NHS. If our health service stops giving away half of their major trauma funding to insurers, it can be modernised and properly resourced.
During this difficult time, it has been encouraging to see a heightened sense of appreciation for the NHS.
The pandemic has highlighted the unbalanced nature of the relationship even further. With a reduction in major trauma incidents following the decrease in road traffic, there will be significantly less claims for treatment made. Insurers will have made thousands of pounds of savings, whilst paradoxically, the NHS will see a stark reduction in revenue received. A select few insurers have taken the proactive step of giving money back to customers where they have seen a significant reduction in claims. It would be the right thing to do for insurers to look at how they can channel their savings back into the NHS.
There is now a vital opportunity to put measures in place to secure the NHS’s long-term future and this starts with a simple review of how major trauma treatment is funded.
During this difficult time, it has been encouraging to see a heightened sense of appreciation for the NHS. It has also been heartening to see fundraising efforts from the public raising millions to support our frontline workers. Going forward, we now need to see the Government take similar action for our health service, ensuring that current regulation is fit for purpose and directs money to the NHS. Laws that govern healthcare must benefit the NHS, not the profit lines of insurance companies. There is now a vital opportunity to put measures in place to secure the NHS’s long-term future and this starts with a simple review of how major trauma treatment is funded.
The UK Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights has announced that it will publish a report on 8 May detailing its findings on the NHS’s contact-tracing app, and has issued early warnings that the app might breach data privacy laws in its current state.
The app is currently being trialled on the Isle of Wight, and operates by exchanging Bluetooth signals between nearby phones as their users come into contact. Should one user later be diagnosed with COVID-19, all users with whom they have come into contact will then be automatically alerted to the possibility that they have been exposed to the virus.
However, campaign groups have taken issue with the data collection methods utilised by the app, such as its reliance on collecting the Bluetooth keys of both infected individuals and their contacts to be stored in a centralised database of information that the NHS will be able to access. This model is at odds with the more widely used Apple-Google exposure notification tool, which heavily restricts the amount of data exchanged.
The Human Rights Committee has called for new legislation to guarantee data privacy and human rights protections, and an independent body to oversee the effective security of the app and any data associated with the contact-tracing process.
[ymal]
Elizabeth Denham, the information commissioner, revealed while giving evidence to the Committee on Monday that her office had not been given a data protection impact assessment from the government, which is a legally required step for organisations that embark on “high risk” data processing.
As of Thursday, the ICO has still not received an impact assessment even as trials have expanded to members of the public residing on the Isle of Wight. Jim Killock, chief executive of the Open Rights Group, commented: “This means NHSX are proceeding unlawfully with their trials”.
In this article, member firms of Ius Laboris provide guidance on the main employment issues around both operating in the current crisis and reopening the workplace in Italy, Sweden and the United States.
United States
When in lockdown, the most important thing that in house counsel should be doing is continuing to work with operations to ensure that all employment actions are compliant; for example, as the stay-at-home orders continue to be implemented and extended, decisions regarding temporary and permanent layoffs, which could implicate the federal or state WARN acts, need to be monitored.
Whilst in lockdown, in-house lawyers have to consider two main issues: business continuity (i.e. clients, customers and partners) and employee issues.
What to do to prepare for when the workforce comes out of lockdown?
With most states projected to hit the outbreak peak sometime this month, companies are tentatively looking to the future and to what the new norms will be in the workplace. In-house counsel should be working with the safety teams to determine how best to reassure employees and customers, including determining whether masks will continue to be permitted or required, whether temperature checks will continue, and what the cleaning and sterilization protocol will be going forward.
Italy
Whilst in lockdown, in-house lawyers have to consider two main issues: business continuity (i.e. clients, customers and partners) and employee issues. From a customer/partner perspective, any risks need to be assessed carefully, including ensuring company solvency through costs assessment, cost reduction and management of commercial contracts (particularly with force majeure clauses) and issues around supply of information, tools and raw materials. Government financial aid must also be monitored particularly carefully, notably tax issues and governmental loans. Interaction with other countries should be considered carefully, both from a business and a movement of goods and logistics point of view.
Thought should be given to having a Crisis Emergency Team in place including privacy experts, HR, in-house counsel and asset protections experts to monitor different measures to be taken.
From the employee side, in close coordination with HR, in-house lawyers must keep on top of all the health and safety measures to be enforced and any changes to official positions or advice. In addition, they should clearly explain the ongoing situation to employees, including measures to be taken to ensure the company’s future, potential measures to reduce the impact of financial issues (such as working hours reductions, suspension of work, holidays and any compulsory leave to be taken).
Thought should be given to having a Crisis Emergency Team in place including privacy experts, HR, in-house counsel and asset protections experts to monitor different measures to be taken.
In addition, HR professionals will need to prepare for a potential second wave of lockdown if there is a resurgence of coronavirus before a vaccine is ready.
What to do to prepare for when the workforce comes out of lockdown?
In-house lawyers (in conjunction with HR) have to clarify the post emergency plan as soon as possible, including various different measures to be taken at the ‘come out’ date. It will be necessary to keep in mind that the emergency will last for months and activities must be monitored for the whole period. In particular, risk areas need to be assessed – including data protection (particularly around positive Covid-19 tests), stress issues, potential layoff or working time reductions and increase illness rates - to create a plan to manage them. It is important to prepare people to work from remote for an extended time. This includes evaluating people working remotely and organising teams accordingly, supplying devices and VPNs, etc. For non-remote work, consideration should be given to the layout of the workplace and how to ensure it complies with social distancing and the use of protective equipment.
In addition, HR professionals will need to prepare for a potential second wave of lockdown if there is a resurgence of coronavirus before a vaccine is ready.
When it comes to cyber-security and data protection, this must be addressed, especially when employees are working from home. If HR departments do not have any policy regarding data security, it could be a good idea to prepare one.
Sweden
In Sweden, the virus is affecting the business in different sectors in various ways and to varying extents. Although there is currently no lockdown, the recommendation is for employees to work from home to the extent possible and limit social contacts both professionally and privately as much as possible. Personal responsibility (‘common sense’) is especially emphasised.
With regards to lay-offs etc., there is a possibility to apply for short time allowance from the state, where employees will have reduced salary and working time and the company receives a state contribution for salary costs. These measures must be assessed in conjunction with considerations around any terminations that are necessary due to redundancy.
Employers in Sweden still need to plan for the usual vacation period. Employees are entitled to, and should take, at least four weeks of vacation from 1 June-31 August. The aim is for employer and employees to agree on how to allocate vacation but if an agreement cannot be reached, the decision is the employer’s.
When it comes to cyber-security and data protection, this must be addressed, especially when employees are working from home. If HR departments do not have any policy regarding data security, it could be a good idea to prepare one.
Contributing authors to this article include Lea Rossi, Partner, at Italian law firm, Toffoletto De Luca Tamajo, Sofia Lysen, Associate at Swedish law firm, Elmzell and Amy Turci, partner at US law firm, Ford Harrison.
In response to the rapidly changing employment landscape globally, Ius Laboris has launched a Coronavirus Resource Hub to support employers as they deal with the challenges confronting their workforces and businesses as a result of the pandemic.
The resources include a Global Legal Taskforce to support companies dealing with coronavirus-related issues in the workplace; a Guide for International Employers spanning over 55 countries; plus daily insights and guidance on the evolving situation from around the world.
The Guide for International Employers assists employers in keeping employees safe and navigating their obligations and the growing list of state controls in this fast-changing landscape. It includes guidance on enabling work from home; what happens if an employee falls sick; managing the impact of national lockdowns or other restrictions on employment; and accessing government funds for employees and businesses.
Daimler has issued recalls and paid an €870 million fine for allegedly selling diesel vehicles with software, or “defeat devices,” that made their engines appear cleaner than they were. They will now face UK group legal action similar to the Volkswagen Dieselgate class lawsuit.
In 2018, Daimler issued a recall of 774,000 vehicles, including diesel versions of the Mercedes C-Class, Vito, and GLC models, after German authorities accused the automaker of installing the software in its line of European diesels. On 21 June 2019, German regulators ordered Mercedes to recall an additional 60,000 GLK 220 model vehicles produced between 2012 and 2015. Daimler also issued a voluntary recall in 2017 of three million vehicles for emissions concerns. Daimler settled a government probe into selling rigged diesel cars in September 2019—nearly four years to the day after Volkswagen’s Dieselgate” scandal was exposed.
Milberg Ltd, an affiliate firm of Milberg Phillips Grossman LLP (“Milberg”), is involved in both Mercedes and Volkswagen emissions lawsuits in the UK. “We may just be seeing the tip of the iceberg with Daimler’s cheating,” said Milberg Partner Glenn Phillips. “But as we’ve seen in the United States and Germany with Dieselgate consumer lawsuits, courts have repeatedly sided with owners and awarded them compensation in these cases.”
Milberg Ltd is calling on anyone who owned or leased a “BlueTec” diesel Mercedes manufactured between September 2009 and February 2016. These models are believed to have failed Euro 5 and Euro 6 diesel emissions standards. Our solicitors plan to bring a series of allegations, including that Daimler defrauded and overcharged owners, broke EU rules, and provided fixes that compromise vehicle function and efficiency.
“It is disappointing to see Daimler show disregard for emissions regulations that are designed to protect public health,” said Milberg Partner Marc Grossman. “We hope this action sends a message to the entire auto industry that there are consequences for recklessly pursuing profits.”
Headquartered in New York City, Milberg has teams on three continents. Since the firm’s founding in 1965, it has repeatedly taken the lead in landmark cases that have set groundbreaking legal precedents, prompted changes in corporate governance, and recovered over $50 billion in verdicts and settlements.
*Image Credit: franz12
The day is an annual celebration recognising the role IP rights play in encouraging innovation and creativity, and this year’s theme from the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) is “Innovate For a Green Future”.
In his World IP Day message, WIPO Director General Francis Gurry highlighted the growing global demand for energy, which is predicted to rise by 30 per cent by 2040. And he emphasised the importance of fostering innovation, and supporting the development or robust IP systems to incentivise and support it, in order to develop the clean energy systems required to meet that demand.
Senior associate Giles Pinnington is a Chartered UK and European Patent and Trade Mark Attorney with Marks & Clerk and welcomed the spotlight being put on green innovation. “It is so important to recognise the role intellectual property systems play in supporting a green future. The innovation we are seeing in the green energy sector is particularly exciting with some truly cutting edge projects underway that could shape the future of energy production in ways we could never have imagined just a few decades ago", he said.
“It’s not just green energy companies where we’re seeing great strides, but in the oil and gas sector we’re also seeing some fantastic innovation as it adapts for the future.”
Our existing infrastructure is already tailored to the use of hydrocarbons, which will continue for years to come. At least for the next few years, it is likely that a very significant proportion of energy will come from oil and gas.
Below Giles highlights some interesting green energy projects underway today:
Reinforcing the scale of innovation in the energy sector, the latest data from the European Patent Office released in March showed a 13% rise in patent applications from the UK, while global EPO applications in the energy category rose 5.5%.
How will these innovations shape change in the next years?
Our existing infrastructure is already tailored to the use of hydrocarbons, which will continue for years to come. At least for the next few years, it is likely that a very significant proportion of energy will come from oil and gas. However, countries are looking to reduce the amount of carbon entering the atmosphere and hydrocarbons are not in infinite supply, so it is important that innovation starts now so that we have the required technologies to help smooth the long-term transition towards alternative energy sources.
. Patents are in some sense a type of insurance taken out to mitigate or prevent economic damage caused by competitors being able to realise the benefits of a technology without having to take on any of the risk and costs associated with developing the technology.
By finding better and more efficient ways of generating hydrocarbons from carbon dioxide and water, it is possible to have net-zero carbon emissions, since the carbon present in the hydrocarbons is taken from the atmosphere before being released again when the fuel is used. Advances in technology could change how we view hydrocarbons from being an energy source to being an energy storage means. There is a long way to go in this regard, but with continuous innovation, we will ultimately get there.
There are clear hurdles ahead. The amount of hydrocarbons used every day across the world is vast and there is by no means enough capacity to replace the use of hydrocarbons with alternative energy sources, like wind, wave, solar, and nuclear. Indeed, the advantages of hydrocarbons are the reason why they have been the primary source of energy for the world since the beginning of the industrial revolution, so any move away will be gradual. Even so, as technology progresses, we may be able to retain the advantages of hydrocarbons by continuing to develop new technologies.
What role does IP play here? What is its importance?
Intellectual property rights, such as patents, provide a mechanism by which the creators of new technologies can protect their investments and enterprise. Without formal intellectual property rights, companies would be unable to protect their assets and would be unable to stop others from profiting off the back of their efforts. Patents are in some sense a type of insurance taken out to mitigate or prevent economic damage caused by competitors being able to realise the benefits of a technology without having to take on any of the risk and costs associated with developing the technology. Simply put, if there is a technology which offers a commercial advantage of any kind, it will be adopted by competitors unless there is some way to stop them. For technical innovations, this is provided by patents.
According to a report by the Frankfurt School, there has been unprecedented investment in renewable energy generation worldwide, but Europe is falling behind with regards to green energy innovation, with China, Japan, South Korea and the US leading the way.
Looking more broadly, in return for the monopoly protection afforded by patents, the deal is that details of the new technology are disclosed in the patent documents, which are published and thereby made available to the public 18 months after filing. This spurs further innovation by inducing others to find new and potentially better ways of solving problems. In addition, by being publicly available, there is more information in the public arena for third parties to develop technologies by seeing what has been done before.
It is also possible to licence and sell intellectual property rights. Licensing allows companies to generate income from their innovative technologies from regions of the world where they do not have operations and can generate income without incurring capital expenditure or having the overheads of operating the technology, whether that is the manufacture of an innovative product or the operation of a patented process.
Finally, under the Patent Box regime in the UK, a lower rate of corporation tax (10%) is applied to profits which are attributed to patented inventions. As such, if a patented product is successful, the owner or exclusive licensee of a patent may reduce its tax burden significantly. The reduction is tax can certainly outweigh any costs associated with obtaining and maintaining a patent.
The majority of investment in green energy is coming from outside Europe, so Europe may be able to benefit from the advantages of innovations coming out of Asia and the US.
Are there any different aspects of IP protection when it regards green energy?
The UK Intellectual Property Office supports green innovation by way of the Green Channel. The Green Channel was introduced in May 2009 with the intention of encouraging the adoption of green technologies which have an environmental benefit.
There are no additional costs associated with Green Channel applications. There is no automatic Green Channel entry for green technologies, but it simply requires a request to be filed which indicates how the invention is environmentally friendly. For certain technologies, such as those relating to wind turbines or solar panels, a simple statement without explanation is generally enough. For technologies having less obvious green credentials, slightly more reasoning is required.
If the application is accepted into the Green Channel, the patent application will undergo accelerated prosecution with the intention of obtaining a granted patent earlier than would have otherwise been the case.
Whether or not the EC will be able to meet its carbon neutrality target of 2050 is unclear, but with continued innovation from across the world, it is becoming closer every day.
What jurisdictions are leading innovation in this area?
According to a report by the Frankfurt School, there has been unprecedented investment in renewable energy generation worldwide, but Europe is falling behind with regards to green energy innovation, with China, Japan, South Korea and the US leading the way. Over the past decade, China has committed US$758 billion in renewable capacity, with the US following on US$356 billion and Japan third with US$202 billion. As a whole, Europe committed US$698 billion over the past decade.
Do you think these patents will help the European Commission meet its target of becoming carbon neutral in 2050 (i.e., is there enough investment in this sector)?
Most inventions are slight improvements on what has gone before. There are very few innovations which are truly revolutionary and completely change an industry. The path to achieving carbon neutrality will not rely on a single innovation, but the combination of myriad incremental steps over time. There is a huge amount of research and development continuing in the green energy sector and we will slowly edge towards carbon neutrality.
In order to achieve carbon neutrality, further investments and innovation will need to be made not only in fuel cells and batteries for end users to use, but also in electrical generation, which is required to charge the batteries and produce the hydrogen needed.
The majority of investment in green energy is coming from outside Europe, so Europe may be able to benefit from the advantages of innovations coming out of Asia and the US. Whether or not the EC will be able to meet its carbon neutrality target of 2050 is unclear, but with continued innovation from across the world, it is becoming closer every day.
It’s likely that this time last year only a handful of law firms were using video conferencing to talk to their clients, however, due to Coronavirus, the world has significantly changed - quite possibly for the long term -, forcing legal businesses across the globe to use online video platforms for everyday interactions with clients, colleagues and staff. The legal sector is not alone; the whole business world has moved online and platforms like Zoom, Microsoft Teams, Google Hangouts are being used everywhere.
The legal industry, however, differs from other businesses and has its own unique challenges and requirements. Lawyers and attorneys have significant responsibilities often imposed by law and bar rules regarding preserving client confidentiality, for example, and so many of the discussions that take place may fall under strict privacy rules that some video conferencing tools by default are not yet suitable enough. So, out of all the video conferencing tools, which one is best for lawyers?
Zoom’s rise as the go-to online meeting place for business has been meteoric in the last few months; in fact, at the end of March it was the second most downloaded app on the App Store and has been downloaded nearly four times as many times as Skype. However, its rise has also been accompanied by multiple stories relating to security issues. Zoom have been quick to defend themselves and also provide security patches such as preventing ‘zoombombing’ by only allowing invited participants to join the meeting in an effort to ramp up any perceived security issues.
Nonetheless, Zoom is currently the number one for a good reason: It’s an excellent piece of software. It is simple to use, has a very easy to use interface including gallery or speaker view, as well asthe ability to screenshare, if you wanted to display documents. Crucially, there have been reports of it being favoured in light of a much better call quality than its competitors. You can also increase the security settings within Zoom to add to the encryption that is already included.
Pros
Cons
Zoom’s ease of use has certainly been instrumental in its popularity rise, as has its free account service. However, it is pertinent for lawyers to assess the lingering doubts associated with the security and privacy of Zoom online meetings, even though the company has implemented measures to better security issues.
Price: Free / Premium paid plans starting from $14.99 per month.
Skype has been around a long time. It’s now owned by Microsoft which should lend its users an air of confidence that there is a quality team behind it, although, the growth of their own Microsoft Teams video conferencing tool suggests that Skype may be on the way to being usurped as the tech giants video tool of choice. But Skype still has a lot to offer in the guise of free accounts, simple to use video chats and unlimited video calling; these advantages have reaped beneficial outcomes, with Expert Witnesses, for example, successfully performing assessments on Claimants, in order to keep legal cases progressing during the lockdown.
However, it suffers from a lack of end-to-end encryption and realistically, if you’re using it day to day in your law firm and you’re keen on sticking with Microsoft, you would be better off using Microsoft Teams, which is a far more feature-laden and robust platform and has been developed using Skype as a starting point.
Pros
Cons
Price: Free
Microsoft Teams is really Skype’s younger, but more attractive brother. In creating Teams, Microsoft built on what it had already made in Skype, but added in more features, better security and made it look better. This all comes at a cost though as you can only access Teams if you have an active Microsoft 365 subscription. So if your law firm doesn’t use Office 365, it’s likely that this won’t be a viable option for you. Although, Microsoft has recently made some free trials available due to Covid-19, so if you want to trial it, you can, but it’s worth bearing in mind that Teams isn’t just a video platform, so it may be a little daunting or excessive if you are solely looking for software to conduct video consultations or staff meetings.
Teams is an excellent piece of software though and has some very nice features, such as the ability to search through meetings for specific sections. So, if you’re looking for a particular part of a meeting you’ve missed, such as your case, just type in the words and Teams will play the relevant part of the meeting. It can also accommodate up to 250 attendees to any meeting (although only nine can be viewed at any one time). Security-wise Microsoft have been very forward in showcasing Teams’ advantages and they do stack up, using Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP) for video, audio, and desktop sharing, all of which ensures that you will be well covered.
Pros
Cons
Price: Starts from $5 per person per month with annual commitment.
In the video conferencing field, Google have been playing catch-up, something that they don’t like to do. However, the popularity and availability to end users of Zoom seemingly caught the San Francisco tech giants napping and subsequently their video conferencing platform Google Hangouts was lagging behind in both availability, usage and quality compared to Zoom. But Google have moved quickly and Hangouts is now Google Meet. Similar to Hangouts, Meet belongs to the G-Suite family, so if your legal business uses G-Suite, it’s likely that you may be using Hangouts or Meet over the other platforms, and Meet - the evolution of Hangouts –, is a real competitor of Zoom and other platforms now.
Meet has some great functions and it’s very easy to initiate video calls using calendar links, meeting URLs, and phone dial-in numbers with the meetings allowing up to 250 users. Its security is also very strong: the service requires a hard to crack 25-character string for meeting IDs. Google Meet is just a standalone video platform which Google are now offering for free until September 2020, although if you opt for the paid subscription, like Microsoft Teams you get to use the rest of the G-Suite platform, but arguably with a much easier to navigate interface.
Pros
Cons
Price: Free until September. Paid plans start from $6 per person per month with annual commitment.
This might be one you have not heard of yet, but it’s one you should definitely consider. Legaler is an Australian based company that developed their legal industry-specific video conferencing tool in 2015, with its main selling point being that it is geared for lawyers, thus offering several features that make it a desirable option.
It offers many of the features that the major players do, such as allowing lawyers to schedule, host, record and archive secure video meetings with staff and clients. There is also the option to screenshare and allow multiple participants to join a meeting. Security is a major focus for Legaler, with the platform using technology that means that even if you are connected to a public wifi hotspot, the meeting will still be secure.
Legaler offers both a slimmed down model of its platform that is free and a full-feature version. The good news is that the full-feature paid plan is free for the entirety of this year for law firms who have 10 or fewer employees. For firms over this size, it costs $19.99 per month.
Another interesting addition is that Legalar is fully integrated with Clio - one of the worlds most popular legal client management software platforms. This is the only video conferencing platform currently doing this, so this will be a major plus if your firm currently uses Clio.
Pros
Cons
Price: Free plans available, including full-feature for law firms with 10 or fewer employees. Paid plan $19.99 per month
Which video platform your law firm uses is really dependant on the size of your law firm and which platform you use for your internal business management such as Office, G-Suite and/or Clio. Usability and feature-wise we’d probably avoid Skype, because the other platforms are just much better at this point. But if security is your main concern, Teams, Meet and Legaler all have strong encryption and even Zoom, after much negative publicity, has improved immeasurably. Using any out of Zoom, Meet, Teams or Legaler should give you a great platform to communicate with your clients and staff, but whatever platform you do use you need to ensure you are checking all of their pricing, functionality and crucially their security before signing up.
Whatever video conferencing tool your law firm chooses to use, it’s imperative that you do the following to ensure the best security possible before using any platform:
This article was written in conjunction with the team from ClickLaw Marketing.
