Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
Aziz Rahman of corporate crime solicitors Rahman Ravelli details the fraud risks posed to business by coronavirus and the ways such risks can be minimised.
At the time of writing, everyone is observing restrictions on their movements and many millions are either working from home or have stopped work altogether in an effort to stop the spread of COVID-19.
As a response to such a seismic blow to the economy, Chancellor Rishi Sunak announced huge packages of financial assistance last month in the shape of grants for the self-employed and payment of the wages of employed workers. Yet in announcing his help for the self-employed, the Chancellor acknowledged that such a scheme may be attractive to those looking to perpetrate fraud.
His statement was a recognition that whatever the health of an economy - or the financial standing of an individual or a company within it – there will always be those looking to make fraudulent gains. The situation that has been created by coronavirus will have produced new opportunities for those who commit fraud. And fraud is like a virus: it will spread and cause the maximum amount of harm unless the right precautions are taken. To paraphrase the criminologist Dr Donald Cressey, perceived financial need, opportunity and rationalisation all help promote fraud. With the current economic uncertainty, the chance for state financial hand-outs and the possibility that many may feel they should be getting something, all of Cressey’s conditions appear to be present.
The situation that has been created by coronavirus will have produced new opportunities for those who commit fraud.
That is the case when it comes to both the Chancellor’s attempts to help employees and the business world in general: new developments produce new fraud possibilities.
This is arguably why the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has gone to great lengths to warn that the present situation may be exploited by those looking to defraud, using anything from investment fraud and advance fee fraud through to clone firms. The FCA is urging those in business to use its Financial Services Register and its Warning List to check on the authenticity of any financial proposition made. Similarly, the National Crime Agency (NCA) is highlighting risks posed by the likes of bogus online medical equipment suppliers, fake HM Revenue and Customs, bank and loan company officials and computer hackers passing themselves off as software engineers. Companies could even find themselves being impersonated by those looking to make illegal gains.
It is now, therefore, arguably more important than ever to be alert to the risks. This means both having well thought-out and properly executed measures in place to prevent and / or identify fraud and responding promptly and appropriately if fraud is suspected.
A prompt, thorough internal investigation will always be the best way to establish if there has been fraud committed, why it happened and how to prevent repeat occurrences. This may, at first glance, appear difficult given current working restrictions. But it can be done with some “out of the box’’ thinking. Interviews, for example, could be conducted via telephone or video link; although consideration must be given to legal issues such as confidentiality and privilege in the jurisdictions where they are carried out. Document collection can be done remotely or by using an appropriate third party, providing all relevant data protection requirements are met. Once such an investigation has been completed, decisions then need to be made regarding whether its findings are shared internally and / or disclosed to the relevant regulatory agency.
[ymal]
It should at this point be emphasised that despite the unusual circumstances the law and the agencies that enforce it are still functioning; even if changes are being made. To give one significant example, while Business Secretary Alok Sharma has announced a temporary suspension of the wrongful trading provisions, the law in relation to fraudulent trading - and the potential for director disqualification – remains in place. It is a development that shows that while businesses’ current problems are being acknowledged by the government, companies cannot expect to be immune from either the dangers of fraud or the consequences of becoming involved in it.
Recent weeks have seen significant upheaval in the business world – and a clear possibility for those looking to commit fraud. But companies must ensure they do what they can to minimise the potential turmoil.
If you run a law firm, chances are you need SOC compliance. Nonetheless, complying with SOC 2 isn’t a mean feat. Getting the initial report alone requires significant time, resources, and effort. Often, many people think that SOC 2 compliance doesn’t apply to law firms. However, this isn’t the case because law firms collect huge volumes of data from their clients.
In today’s tech-savvy legal practice, firms have moved past storing client data in filing cabinets. Legal practitioners are increasingly leveraging the technology that is available to them, to store their clients’ data. With the ever-growing number of cyber-attacks, it’s imperative that you keep the data secure besides ensuring that it remains available. The data also needs to be kept confidential and processed with confidentiality.
If your law firm stores its data on the cloud, you’ll certainly need SOC 2 compliance. Unfortunately, many legal practitioners don’t know where or how to embark on their SOC 2 compliance journey. If you are caught up in this situation, you’ll need to be guided on how to effortlessly navigate the intricate world of SOC compliance.
The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) established the SOC 2 auditing standard to test organisations’ internal controls regarding information security and privacy. By attaining compliance status, you’ll be informing your clients that they can trust your law firm to handle their data with utmost care and discretion.
SOC 2 compliance is relevant to all businesses that store customer data on the cloud. This standard isn’t just necessary for protecting your law firm and its clients from data breaches. It is also important for boutique law firms that are seeking to move upmarket.
By attaining compliance status, you’ll be informing your clients that they can trust your law firm to handle their data with utmost care and discretion.
Some lucrative clients will expect you to meet the same compliance standards as other vendors that they have. SOC 2 might be one of the requisite compliance requirements. Therefore, a savvy law firm should use SOC 2 as a competitive distinguisher since compliance proves that the firm is credible, established, and attuned to its customers’ needs.
For your law firm to become SOC 2 compliant, it needs to undergo an audit. Consequently, it will receive a report that highlights the quality of the controls that you have in place. The type and criteria of the trust services that you choose will determine the scope of your audit test.
Generally, SOC 2 reports test against five trust services criteria. These are confidentiality, privacy, security, availability, and processing integrity. Before engaging an auditor, you must decide which among the five criteria you’d like tested. You can also choose to have all the five trust services criteria tested.
The security criteria are mandatory in all SOC 2 assessments because it sets all-encompassing security standards for your law firm. It also overlaps the other criteria by setting controls for confidentiality, privacy, processing integrity, and availability. The security criteria ensures that your clients’ data and the systems that handle it are secure at all times.
The availability criteria ensure that your systems are not only secure but also available to clients to use whenever they expect to. It addresses network performance, security event handling, downtime, etc. It’s important to guarantee clients access to your services and their data at all times.
The confidentiality criteria are meant to ensure the utmost protection of confidential information that is in your law firm’s possession. If you agreed to keep some of your clients’ information confidential, this criteria is for you. The confidentiality criteria provide guidelines for the identification, protection, and destroying confidential information.
[ymal]
The privacy criteria entails the protection of clients’ personal data. These criteria determine whether your law firm effectively protects its clients’ personal information. It addresses how you collect, store, and handle personal information, including clients’ names, addresses, Social Security numbers, and any other identifying information.
The processing integrity criteria ensures that you are providing clients with the agreed-upon services in an accurate, timely, and authorized manner. This criterion addresses processing errors and the time that it takes to identify and fix them. It also addresses issues regarding the incident-free storage and preservation of data in your possession.
Thanks to the processing integrity criteria, you’ll be able to tell whether system inputs and outputs that you use are free from manipulation and unauthorised access. It demonstrates to clients that your data, processes, and systems are working as intended, and therefore, they shouldn’t worry about any inaccuracies, errors, or delays.
To make your law firm S0C 2-compliant, it’s advisable to engage a team of experts who will create protocols for compliance. The firm’s data will be monitored by experts who will also set up and responds to any security alerts. This way, it will be easy to distinguish real threats from false positives whenever an anomalous activity occurs. Working with SOC 2 compliance experts eases the compliance journey.
The coronavirus pandemic is posing huge challenges to every family. However, families based across more than one country will be facing particular difficulties. Hetty Gleave, Partner at Hunters Law LLP, explains to Lawyer Monthly the challenges that these families face.
Whilst the government has confirmed that transporting children between homes is permitted essential travel during the lockdown, this will not help international families, where children or parents regularly fly to or from the UK for contact.
And whilst the UK has not yet closed its borders, many other countries have done so, and there are now far fewer transport options with most international flights cancelled. Wealthy families with access to private jets may have more options, depending on where else they have bases. However, if the UK closes its borders they too will be affected. Even without a border closure, the government is advising against all but essential international travel, and families will choose to avoid international travel to reduce their risk of infection.
Where families are based across a number of jurisdictions, this may mean children being separated from parents, and potentially from siblings, for many months. In such cases, parents will need to make remote contact work. International families used to spending time abroad may be at an advantage here, with experience of staying in touch with family and friends remotely. Beyond video calls, online gaming, learning and watch parties can make remote contact a lot more fun for children.
Where families are based across a number of jurisdictions, this may mean children being separated from parents, and potentially from siblings, for many months.
In addition to remote contact, families should consider additional face-to-face contact once restrictions are eased, for example, additional time during the summer holidays.
Unfortunately some parents are likely to use the coronavirus as pretext for disrupting contact unnecessarily. For international families, where it's likely that face-to-face contact will not be possible, this is likely to take the form of frustrating remote contact – whether by not making the children available for agreed times, by refusing to agree times, or by distracting children when they're due to be spending virtual time with the other parent.
The judiciary has been clear that maintaining relationships between children and parents is particularly important at this uncertain time. For international families, this will almost certainly be through extensive and meaningful remote contact. If one parent is obstructing such contact from taking place, then this can be challenged through a court application, and the courts are continuing to operate, albeit remotely. It will be important to ascertain which country's courts have jurisdiction; the English courts will generally have jurisdiction if the child is habitually resident here.
[ymal]
Whilst the court is extremely unlikely to mandate contact that would require international travel, if one parent is preventing remote contact, a court order is likely to be appropriate. In practice, however, it is likely be difficult to get an early hearing date, where the courts are facing staff shortages and will need to prioritise the most serious welfare cases, such as where children are being abused. Whether a hearing can be obtained may depend on which region the children are based in, as different court regions have different capacities. Additionally, enforcement will in reality be challenging at this time.
Issues may also arise where applications and orders need to be served across borders, though courts are in any event increasingly permitting service by email or even social media, and would be expected to do so if the pandemic has made paper service abroad unrealistic.
The disruption of parent-child relationships during this emotionally challenging period poses a real risk of damaging that relationship, and where the court has capacity to accommodate a remote hearing, obtaining a judgment that one parent has been behaving unreasonably, and a Child Arrangements Order tailored to the current circumstances, requiring remote contact, may be powerful in sending a clear message to the other parent that unreasonably refusing to facilitate remote contact is never acceptable, and will be harmful to the child.
The disruption of parent-child relationships during this emotionally challenging period poses a real risk of damaging that relationship[...]
In some circumstances, arbitration is likely to be a pragmatic and helpful tool for parents unable to agree on the best arrangements for their children, and can, like court, hearings, it can take place remotely. Unlike court proceedings, however, it does, require both parties' agreement to the process, so may not assist where one party is being deliberately obstructive.
Whether an application is to be made or not, where one parent is unreasonably frustrating remote contact, it would be sensible to keep contemporaneous notes, supported by copies of relevant emails, texts, WhatsApp or other messages as evidence of what has taken place, in case a review of what happened to contact during the pandemic is required in future proceedings.
Any parent who abuses the pandemic to damage their child’s relationship with their other parent is likely to have a hard time in future persuading a court that they prioritise their child’s best interests, and this could limit the amount of time they are able to spend with their children going forward, or even result in a change of the child’s residence. The family judiciary have made their views clear in their guidance, and parents should think of the long term impact of ignoring that on both them and their children.
Whether you simply love art and culture, or are looking for elegance and luxury in the heart of Barcelona, we found Hotel Claris to be an exceptional choice in discovering all things Barcelona, from the local cuisine to the centre’s history and legacy.
When we first entered the corner building on Pau Claris, we were not only greeted by the wonderful and caring staff, but more so by the beauty and grandeur of this fabulous hotel. Wherever you look there is art, predominantly pre-Colombian and Mayan, from busts and clay heads, to some of the most amazing oil paintings and sculptures I’ve ever seen in a hotel.
We were invited to complimentary champagne, as the staff celebrated our arrival and showed us to our room, and we were in awe. Each room, all being recently refurbished, includes a private luxury bathroom, complimentary Nespresso machines, an all-inclusive mini-bar, and as throughout the rest of the hotel, endless culture-rich art. Our room was particularly large for a city-centre hotel, included individual climate control and a bed the size of my bedroom at home; it’s safe to say I had one of the most comfortable holiday sleeps I’ve ever had.
The Claris’ staff gave us a quick tour around, and in showing us some of the other rooms, explained that the hotel, once known as the Vedruna Palace, dates back to 1883 when building a palace like the Claris was entirely unprecedented in such a central neighbourhood. Whilst retaining most of its neo-classical façade, the hotel also succeeds in displaying the heritage and historical identity of the current owner and his wife, through both the portraits on the walls and the décor that adorns them.
After settling in and exploring some of Barcelona’s key landmarks, we were treated to a delightful and culturally educational lunch at the hotel’s pool & terrace space, La Terraza. Our host Jon talked us through each plate as if it were his family’s own honoured recipe. We started off with a variety of croquettes, prepared exclusively for us by Michelin star chef and CEBO specialist Aurelio Morales and Daniel Hernández. This was followed by an exquisite seafood lasagne and a mouth-watering spicy sausage paella, both rounded off with a perfectly picked Mediterranean wine. This lunch experience was definitely something to tell your friends about. To be wined and dined by the best in the business, and learn about Spanish and Mediterranean cuisine in such detail, was truly amazing.
With full bellies and a taste for Spain, at this point we were eager to take in as much of it as we could, but despite the hotel being just a brisk walk from Passeig de Gràcia, we opted to ignore the trams and taxis, and stick to La Terraza; we couldn’t get enough of it. I was particularly impressed by the terrace’s own individual decoration, the beautiful Persian rugs that pave the floor, and its relaxed, calm and cool vibe. It was the beginning of March when we visited Hotel Claris, so the pool was freezing cold, but we couldn’t leave without taking a quick dip! With a cocktail in hand and the high-rise breeze on our heads, it felt like Hotel Claris had given us a brief snapshot into the lives of the Spanish bourgeois, ripe with elegance, class and sophistication.
The next day, we decided to head into the busy part of town, by Las Ramblas, and take a look at some of the local restaurants and bars. We were pleasantly surprised by several authentic Spanish restaurants, and even more so by the street food vendors offering the nitty-gritty of local cuisine. Choosing to walk as opposed to taking the tram or a taxi was also a great choice, as it allowed us to experience the ins and outs of Barcelona’s backstreets and day to day local shops without compromise. Travelling to several of the other main landmarks did require the underground however, but that made it all the much easier to see everything in the time we were there.
We topped our weekend in Barcelona off with an evening visit to Barceloneta Beach, the sun was setting and we’d just about made it with our toes on the sand. We experienced the stunning view of the Iberian coastline and the perfect timing of it all left us in wonder and amazement. What makes it more amazing, is that within the space of 30 minutes we were already back in our hotel room, warm and cosy, ready for sleep.
Besides the luxury and sophistication, we found Hotel Claris’s selling point to be its positioning in the city centre, as we made great time getting to any local spot, in all four directions, from the Sagrada Familia and Las Ramblas, to Parc Guell and Montjuic. In fact, two of Gaudi’s famously designed buildings are but a stone’s throw away from Hotel Claris. My wife and I cannot recommend this hotel enough. Whether it’s a short weekend stay like ours, or a longer visit, leisure or work, we’ll be coming to Hotel Claris again and again.
*Photos taken from Hotel Claris' website: https://www.hotelclaris.com/
You might be wondering if the services of a lawyer are necessary if you were injured in an accident. Accidents can happen anytime, but if you sustained bodily injuries, you should consider consulting with a lawyer that specialises in personal injury cases.
A personal injury is a physical trauma or pain sustained by an individual following an accident or mishap. Some victims of accidents also suffer from mental and emotional anguish months or years after the incident happened. Most personal injury cases result from vehicular crashes, workplace accidents, as well as slip and trip incidents.
Some people who figure in an accident miss work time, sustain permanent physical disabilities and even develop psychological problems. But do all accident injuries require the services of a lawyer? How will you know if you need to consult with a lawyer specializing in accident injuries?
Most personal injury cases result from vehicular crashes, workplace accidents, as well as slip and trip incidents.
Although there are cases when you may not need the expertise of a lawyer, some accident injuries are too significant to handle on your own. There are various reasons why you should hire an injury lawyer:
Minor injuries usually do not need legal help since the victim may be able to process the insurance and legal claims by his or her own. Serious injuries, however, require medical treatment and hospitalization. Accident injuries that last more than a few days will warrant the services of an injury lawyer. Your lawyer will be responsible for evaluating the value of insurance and legal claims. With this, it is best to hire legal representation that knows the personal injury laws of the state where the accident happened.
If you sincerely believe the accident was caused by another person's or company's negligence, you should consult with a personal injury lawyer immediately. An injury attorney is the best professional to help prove your claim. Your lawyer will gather and preserve the crucial evidence to solidify your injury claims.
The responsible party and the insurance company may engage in tactics to make it seem like you are at fault. One of the best reasons to hire an accident injury lawyer is that someone who knows the law will represent you from filing an insurance claim or filing a court case. A personal injury lawyer is also willing to go to court for you, if necessary. Legal representation is a must when you are the party at fault, or the insurance firm is not taking your claims seriously.
[ymal]
Regular folks will likely have very little understanding of how to process a claim or negotiate a settlement. An attorney specialising in personal injury cases not only knows the ins and outs of claims processing, he or she also knows to evaluate the situation and the skills to negotiate. If you are not knowledgeable or comfortable in handling the injury settlement process, you should look for a reputable accident injury lawyer to do the hard work for you.
The good news is, the person or company responsible is willing to pay. But the bad news is, the insurance company is making an unreasonably low offer. Some may deploy insurance adjusters to negotiate with you. The truth is some insurance firms will do anything to pay you a small amount for the injuries and damages. The advantage of hiring a lawyer that handles injury cases is that the insurance company knows they cannot undermine your efforts to obtain proper compensation.
Being part of an accident takes a toll on the physical, mental, and emotional well-being of a person. It is never recommended to handle an accident injury case on your own. A reputable attorney will help you fight for your rights in seeking just compensation for your injuries. You benefit immensely in reaching out to a licensed personal injury lawyer near you for legal guidance.
For some so-called platform law firms, remote working is nothing new. The benefits, from encouraging the use of technology to help close the gender pay gap, have never been more apparent.
Below, we expand on the importance of remote working for lawyers and the benefits which go hand-in-hand.
Platform law firms provide self-employed lawyers with the ability to work remotely and flexibly. They are an agile network of sole practitioners, or small practice owners, sharing back-office functions like invoicing, marketing and compliance. With substantially lower brick-and-mortar costs and by making use of technology, they offer clients a high-quality solution at a fraction of the cost of a traditional law firm.
Accountant and business advisory group Hazlewoods reported in November 2018 that the number of lawyers working in platform firms increased by 29% from 2017. And it is easy to see why. Working in a traditional law firm can mean punishing hours, with LegalCheek reporting an average leave time of 10:01 pm in one city firm. Throw in a competitive billing culture and a disempowering lack of autonomy, and it is clear why some lawyers have found another way.
The benefits of remote working are well-touted. But in times like these, avoiding the daily commute, minimising distractions and having time to focus is even more important. The mental health benefits of increased flexibility, autonomy and an improved work/life balance become essential as we all navigate the challenging times ahead.
The Technologies at Play
The partnership model, attachment to hourly billing and inherent risk aversion mean traditional law firms have been slow to embrace the new technologies that enable successful remote working, says recent research commissioned by the Law Society. As a result, ‘many lawyers spent much of their day handling emails and phone calls from their office, often with other people who were in the same building but who they didn’t ever see face to face... these lawyers could have been performing the exact same work if they were working remotely’ notes Ben Levi, founder and COO of legal technology company InCloudCounsel, of his time working in BigLaw.
With the various technologies now available, the case for remote working has never been stronger. Email, video conferencing and various messaging tools mean lawyers can choose their preferred method of instantaneous communication. Workflow managers help maintain productivity levels. Cloud computing provides remote access on a broad scale. Sophisticated workplace collaboration tools mean it is easy to work together on live document changes and virtual private networks keep everything secure.
These tools have always been mission-critical to platform law firms where remote working is the norm. But, in these uncertain times, all lawyers are putting them to the test. If 38% of lawyers never work from home, will law firms have the systems to enable their entire workforce to do so? Time will tell. In the meantime, for remote lawyers, platform law firms and their clients, disruption to working practices is kept to a minimum.
Freedom for Lawyers
Working remotely offers lawyers the ability to pursue other passions. Geographic independence, a flexible workload and a schedule that works for them, means talented professionals can maintain a legal career while having time for other interests. Remote lawyers have ‘the freedom to choose where, and in some cases, how much they want to work, and eliminating the need for them to forgo other life passions’ says Bridget Deiters, managing director at InCloudCounsel. As a result, InCloudCounsel’s network of remote lawyers is a diverse group of individuals who have achieved the freedom to do what they love - they are parents, musicians, artists, photographers, sailors, surfers, home flippers and animal lovers.
And to Top It Off … Closing the Gender Pay Gap
Across the legal sector, women are still paid 10.6% less than men according to the Law Society Group 2019 Gender Pay Gap Report but, at partnership level, the 2018 gender pay gap was 24% says the Financial Times. Figures get considerably worse when you look at the ten largest law firms in the UK where, in 2018, women were paid on average 43% less than their male counterparts, as reported by The Times.
Platform law firms, offering remote working as standard, are helping to close the gender pay gap. Fixed pay structures result in women being paid exactly as much as men for the same work. Increased flexibility, a far cry from the rigid partner track at traditional law firms, means men and women alike can build a practice that is right for them, their families and their circumstances. So, while gender parity in the legal industry appears to be a long way off, platform law firms offering a fixed compensation model are doing their bit to close the gap.
Looking Ahead
The sudden need to work from home, potentially for an extended period of time, as necessitated by COVID-19, has quickly underscored the benefits of platform firms’ remote working arrangements. Home-bound lawyers, in some cases scrambling to adopt the latest technology but enjoying newfound levels of control and flexibility, may well turn to the growing number of platform law firms to make working virtually their everyday reality, build the practices they want and live the lives they want to lead.
Written by Katie May
Katie is a director at InCloudCounsel, a legal technology company that automates and enhances high-volume legal processes for large enterprises. InCloudCounsel’s global, end-to-end solution combines expert legal talent with AI-backed technology and helps some of the world’s leading companies streamline processes, improve work output and reduce legal costs.
The COVID-19 crisis has forced the legal industry to innovate overnight. Anna Simmonds, a barrister and Head of Commercial at Sparqa Legal, discusses what might be learned in this period and how it could reshape the legal landscape.
The LawTech industry has been talking about how law could be done differently for years; and structural change was afoot. HMCTS pledged £1.2bn to digitise hearings in 2016. The MOJ recently pledged £2m in funding to TechNation to promote the use of technology in the legal sector. The LawTech market was booming, with £1bn global investment in legal technology last year.
But despite increased buzz in the LawTech market, for many legal practitioners, ‘innovation’ had often felt like rather an abstract concept. Of course, pressure to be more efficient and meet growing customer expectations to utilise the latest technology has been very real; but there existed a dissonance between this and the pressure to crack on with the ‘day job’, meaning that for many, LawTech remained no more than a buzzword.
Then in March 2020, the world changed. COVID-19 has stopped us all in our tracks. Courtrooms stand empty as the justice system was advised to conduct as many hearings as possible using video and conference calls instead.
Even the most tech-phobic practitioners have been forced to look to innovative solutions to this unprecedented global crisis overnight as they adapt to providing legal services and hearings remotely.
The COVID-19 crisis has forced the legal industry to innovate overnight.
Larger law firms were already well equipped to deal with the challenges presented by the COVID-19 lockdown, with many LawTech tools already embedded across the firm. Smaller firms will have found they simply weren’t set up to deal with the risks remote casework and document management can present - security and privacy being the most obvious example.
Even firms with good infrastructure in place will still have had to grapple with the operational issues that present themselves with teams working remotely. Exceptionally good communication skills are required to keep everyone aligned and meeting targets from afar. Uncertainty and the impact this has on productivity has opened up a role for online team and leadership tools to handle the interpersonal side of running a legal business.
Some lawyers have responded very quickly to the changes: one example is Cloisters' chambers pilot initiative using remote video conferencing to deliver multi-party settlement meetings and mediations. There will be questions around what this new way of working means for open justice.
[ymal]
Several businesses have offered collaboration tools for free during this period to help with remote working: Microsoft Teams, Google Hangouts and Cisco to name a few, and it is encouraging to see examples of some LawTech vendors on that list too with contract management, online signature and learning and development tools being made widely available.
Investors tend to favour more conservative businesses during a time of economic uncertainty, so the biggest threat to LawTech is the inevitable impact on funding.
Many practice areas are experiencing a lull in work. However other areas, like family law and online crime, are anticipated to see work rise as a result of the lockdown .There will inevitably be less appetite amongst affected legal practices to invest in new LawTech products whilst the focus is on keeping core operations going.
The impact will be disastrous for many LawTech start-ups. We have already started to see LawTech companies like Disco cutting staff. However, products that can facilitate these new ways of working, such as video conferencing service Zoom, will have seen a huge spike in user numbers and shares (Zoom was recently valued at $29 billion.)
The increased need for efficiencies in legal service delivery will continue to draw interest from some investors keen to take the opportunity to buy cheaper shares in the most meaningful LawTech solutions.
The impact will be disastrous for many LawTech start-ups.
It is unclear how long social distancing measures will be in place. When restrictions are eventually lifted, will lawyers revert to the old way of doing things? What will we have learned from this time?
Will some of the formalities currently postponed for virtual hearings, suddenly feel antiquated and unnecessary? Will we see a shift to a more informal, and arguably more accessible, judiciary?
This is an opportunity to consider which areas of legal services really do benefit from the human touch. Some hearings, like jury trials, would surely never work remotely. But it is expected that other matters, like many case management and commercial hearings, will reveal themselves to have transitioned very nicely using remote working technology. Will we see an increase in the use of LawTech to help move as many processes online as required, leaving the face-to-face for essentials only?
We are hopeful that the most worthwhile LawTech products will survive this downturn by adapting to meet customers’ changing needs and continuing to play a crucial part in shaping this new legal landscape.
The greatest issue faced by the prison system will be access to healthcare within the prison itself. Prisons with a healthcare wing already have to deal with a range of physical and mental health issues, so the added pressure of having prisoners who could have COVID-19 will leave those with new or pre-existing health issues in difficulty when trying to obtain medical care.
Prisons will, of course, need access to testing kits, which appears to be something of an issue in the wider community, as many medical practitioners on the front line are currently not being tested. Without the ability to test prisoners, prisons will be forced to isolate all those who are symptomatic, have been exposed to the risk of contracting the virus, and those who are most vulnerable.
On a logistical level, the service will also have to consider how basic amenities are delivered, such as meals and access to education or employment where eligible.
With the increase in convictions for historic sexual offences, the prison service has found itself with an unprecedented amount of older inmates, aged 70 years and over, who according to government guidance are required to self-isolate. With only select prisons having wings designated for geriatric inmates, space is limited and it may force inmates to be moved to different prisons to accommodate isolation.
On a logistical level, the service will also have to consider how basic amenities are delivered, such as meals and access to education or employment where eligible. In some cases, it may be that this is simply not possible and inmates will find themselves without education or wages for some time.
At an individual level, where there has been a diagnosis of COVID-19, it will almost certainly mean that there will be a consideration as to whether visits from family, friends and legal representatives will be cancelled. Many inmates are miles away from home and consequently, the journey made by family and friends can be a long one, only possible a couple of times a month. The lack of face-to-face contact with loved ones will inevitably have a detrimental impact on prisoners’ wellbeing, but without access to Skype or the internet, it is difficult to see how this will be avoided.
While at this stage it is entirely speculative, it is anticipated that over the next few days any teething problems will be identified as the mass roll-out of remote court hearings begins, with in-person hearings being drastically reduced from this week.
Given the difficulties faced by the prison service in this situation, it would appear that the best way to try to mitigate the disruption to prisoners’ lives is to ensure that there are enough officers available to cater to the augmented regime, ensuring prisoners are able to have food delivered to them in their cells, for example. Prisons will need to work closely with those agencies providing healthcare within the prison itself, again ensuring that there are enough staff to visit inmates in cells and that they have the right PPE to facilitate visits. We may see prisons separated into zones to ensure that those prisoners not at risk can continue as best they can engaging with the regime.
One alternative the prison service will be considering is whether it can identify low-risk prisoners, who are serving short determinate sentences, that would be eligible for Home Detention Curfew, and whether it would be safe for the community for them to serve the remainder of their sentences on licence. Whilst this may be considered a controversial move, the reality is that there is a finite amount of resource and funding available to the prison service and unless it is able to free up space, time and manpower those who are at risk will inevitably suffer.
While at this stage it is entirely speculative, it is anticipated that over the next few days any teething problems will be identified as the mass roll-out of remote court hearings begins, with in-person hearings being drastically reduced from this week. One anticipated change is that the system will recognise that remote hearings are possible and could be used more widely, to accommodate those who are located far from the designated court or have care commitments which make court attendance more difficult.
[ymal]
However, only time will tell if the court service has the technology to meet the demands of remote working. This is particularly the case for those advocates due to appear before a criminal court, where there has been a severe lack of funding invested in court hearings, while reduced court sitting days have already created a backlog of cases to be heard which will now not be dealt with for some time.
Alexandra Hirst, Associate, and Emily Brand, Partner, Boodle Hatfield LLP
As governments around the world put in place measures to limit the spread of Covid-19 and protect the most vulnerable from infection, individuals are adapting to a new way of life. Normal working practices have quickly shifted to enable people to work remotely and comply with requests to self-isolate and distance themselves from others. It seems inevitable that this will be obligatory for the foreseeable future and one wonders whether the changes could become the "new normal".
In the legal profession, there has been a steady move towards lawyers working from home but this is generally only one or two days a week and is ordinarily arranged on an individual basis. Now, entire firms are based at home with no sense of when they will be able to return to their offices. Software is in place for individuals to login and view their desktop as though they were in the office with their calls diverted to mobile phones. Using technology such as LoopUp, Zoom and Microsoft Teams, firms and individual departments are able to continue to communicate effectively and to check in regularly with developments in their files and cases. Documents can be scanned on mobile phones and letters can be signed electronically and sent as PDFs. Barristers have made it clear, via emails from their senior clerks, that conferences can take place via Skype or telephone. They are also making rooms available to enable remote hearings, arbitration and mediation to take place. Polite requests have been made for documents to be sent by email and for briefs and Court bundles to be sent in electronic format.
8% of respondents confirmed that they had implemented a workplace policy addressing pandemic disease in response to Coronavirus*
There have been circulars from the Courts indicating that hearings are to take place remotely using the technologies noted above or involving advocates only; with their clients on the telephone (which for many will be a great relief, Court attendance being notoriously stressful for lay clients). Applications are to be made and Court papers filed electronically. These will be viewed on-screen by the judiciary, an example of modernisation which many have been seeking for years but which have not yet been put in place consistently or effectively in this jurisdiction.
These swift and practical arrangements enable the profession to provide a consistent service to their clients.
Why have they not been put in place before? The practices are convenient, cost-effective (for firms and for clients) and environmentally friendly - what volume of paper has been saved this week since going paperless? It is presently not known how long these measures will need to be in place though it appears that it will be at least several months. This will certainly be a long enough period for people to become accustomed to this way of working and, if it does come with wide-ranging benefits, it is likely to represent a sea-change in the way the profession operates in the long-term.
Once established, this could be hugely beneficial for working parents who have shown to their employers that they can do their job just as well while operating flexibly and therefore feel able to keep working when they might have otherwise felt compelled to stop due to the competing demands of office life and child-rearing. This would undoubtedly lead to otherwise lost talent remaining in the profession.
10% still plan to implement a policy, while almost 11% still had no plans to implement a policy at the time of response. Less than 10% had a policy in place prior to the Coronavirus outbreak*
But would such change be universally positive? We are already, more than ever before, required to be available to clients by way of our mobile phones. This means for many it is no longer acceptable to suggest that a holiday means they are non-contactable. If it becomes well-established that we are able to work under any conditions, will this perpetuate the expectation of clients to be able to have access to their legal team at any time? In addition, if face-to-face meetings are reduced, there is a risk that the important nuance of human interaction is lost. Would the subtleties of a complex negotiation be effectively communicated on a screen? Would family lawyers pick up on delicate hints from their clients that something is not quite right (are they withholding disclosure or, more troubling, not revealing a sensitive issue such as domestic violence?). Care must be taken to preserve the very human aspect of the job which requires sensitivity, understanding and empathy.
The priority, of course, is to follow the appropriate guidance to keep the population as safe as possible during this difficult time and it remains to be seen what the wider consequences will be when the crisis is successfully overcome.
*Source: Lewis Silkin
Do employers have to pay employees who are off sick with diagnosed coronavirus?
Yes, employees will be entitled to the employer’s usual sick leave and pay provisions, including statutory sick pay. The government has announced that the three-day waiting period for statutory sick pay will be removed temporarily for coronavirus-related absences, backdated to 13 March. The Chancellor also announced that it will reimburse employers with fewer than 250 employees any coronavirus-related statutory sick pay they pay employees for the first two weeks of sickness, backdated to 14 March.
The government has launched online “isolation notes” to provide evidence of the need to self-isolate when someone is absent for more than seven days due to having symptoms of coronavirus.
On 13 March The Statutory Sick Pay (General) (Coronavirus Amendment) Regulations 2020 came into force.
Do employers have to pay employees who are off sick with coronavirus symptoms, but who have not been diagnosed?
Yes, if the employee has symptoms which mean they are too unwell to come to work, they will be entitled to the usual sick leave and pay provisions, including statutory sick pay. The government has announced that the three-day waiting period for statutory sick pay will be removed temporarily for absence related to coronavirus, backdated to 13 March.
Do employers have to pay employees who aren’t actually sick but are quarantined according to medical/government advice?
On 13 March The Statutory Sick Pay (General) (Coronavirus Amendment) Regulations 2020 came into force. These extend statutory sick pay to anyone self-isolating to prevent the spread of Coronavirus in accordance with guidance published by Public Health England, NHS National Services Scotland or Public Health Wales who “by reason of that isolation is unable to work”.
This means that an individual who is otherwise capable of working but who is in self-isolation in accordance with official guidance is entitled to SSP. That individual does not have to have been diagnosed with coronavirus. Current guidance requires self-isolation for seven days by those who are sick, however mildly. The guidance also requires self-isolation for 14 days for individuals in the same household as someone with coronavirus symptoms even if they are well. If an individual in this situation then starts showing symptoms, they should self-isolate for seven days from when the symptoms started. The change to the law gives these individuals a right to statutory sick pay.
Employers will need to consider whether to apply the new statutory sick pay rules to company sick pay as well.
Employees that are legally required to stay away from work are entitled to statutory sick pay (see below).
If the employee is able to work remotely, they will be entitled to usual pay.
If the employee is not able to work remotely, they will still be entitled to full pay if the employer’s policies give a right to pay in these circumstances.
Employers will need to consider whether to apply the new statutory sick pay rules to company sick pay as well.
Do employers have to pay employees if it is illegal to come to work due to compulsory quarantine?
The government has powers to introduce compulsory quarantine under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 and the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984. So far the government has introduced measures in England under the Health Protection (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020. This allows the Secretary of State or a registered public health consultant to detain people for testing, impose restrictions on travel and activities, or require a person to be kept in isolation. This would mean it would be illegal for an employee to come to work if they are compulsorily detained, restricted or in isolation.
The statutory sick pay rules apply to a person who is deemed incapable of work.
Detention and restrictions on travel and activities can only be required if there are reasonable grounds to believe a person might be infected, or if they have returned from an ‘infected area’ (declared on www.gov.uk). Isolation can only be required if there are reasonable grounds to believe the person may be infected, and it is necessary and proportionate to isolate them to reduce or remove the risk of infecting others.
If they are used, the affected employee will be entitled to statutory sick pay. The statutory sick pay rules apply to a person who is deemed incapable of work. This includes where a person is prevented from working pursuant to an enactment (i.e. these new regulations), and it is known or reasonably suspected that the person is infected or has been in contact with a case of a relevant infection. A person’s entitlement to contractual sick pay in this situation will depend on the wording of the relevant contract or sick pay policy.
The newly enacted Families First Coronavirus Response Act provides for a limited period of paid sick leave and expands the Family and Medical Leave Act to provide an extended period of unpaid or partially paid leave for a public health emergency.
The Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act
The Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act (the paid leave provision) requires private employers of fewer than 500 employees (and government employers) to provide paid sick time to employees where the employee cannot work (or telework) because he or she:
Employers of healthcare providers or emergency responders may elect not to provide this leave to those employees.
There is a cap on the amount an employer must pay employees receiving Paid Sick Leave.
Employers may require employees to follow reasonable notice procedures to continue to receive Paid Sick Leave after the first workday an employee receives paid sick time.
Paid sick time must be made available to all employees. Full-time employees are entitled to 80 hours of paid sick leave, while paid sick leave for part-timers is equal to the average number of hours the employee works over a two-week period.
Time off for self-care must be compensated at the higher of the employee’s regular pay rate, federal minimum wage, or local minimum wage. Time off to care for a sick family member or a child who is not in school must be compensated at two-thirds of the employee’s regular rate.
There is a cap on the amount an employer must pay employees receiving Paid Sick Leave.
To ease the financial burden of compliance, the Act provides for a limited tax credit equal to the amount an employer pays an employee under this provision.
Emergency FMLA leave is available if an employee is unable to work (or telework) because of needing leave to care for their child under 18 as the child’s school or place of care is unavailable due to a public health emergency.
E- FMLA
The Families First Coronavirus Response Act also contains the Emergency Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act (the ‘E-FMLA’), which creates Public Health Emergency Leave. These amendments are effective through 31 December 2020 and provide for leave due to a public health emergency (i.e. coronavirus).
Emergency FMLA leave is available if an employee is unable to work (or telework) because of needing leave to care for their child under 18 as the child’s school or place of care is unavailable due to a public health emergency.
An employee is eligible for E-FMLA if he or she has been employed for at least 30 calendar days. Employers of health care providers or emergency responders may exempt them from coverage.
All employers with fewer than 500 employees must provide this leave.
The Secretary of Labor can exempt certain employers, including health care providers, emergency responders, and businesses with fewer than 50 employees.
Pay during leave
The Act provides for a combination of unpaid and paid leave. The first ten days may be unpaid, but an employee may elect (and an employer may require an employee) to substitute accrued vacation, personal leave, or medical or sick leave for unpaid leave. For many employees, that period will be paid as a result of the Emergency Paid Sick Time Act. After ten days, employers must provide partial paid leave for each additional day of leave at not less than two-thirds of an employee’s regular rate for the number of hours the employee would otherwise be scheduled to work. For employees whose hours fluctuate, the employer can take an average over a six-month period.
The amount employers must pay employees receiving E-FMLA is capped (no more than USD 200 per day and USD 10,000 in aggregate).
The Secretary of Labor can exempt certain employers, including health care providers, emergency responders, and businesses with fewer than 50 employees.
As with the Emergency Paid Sick Time Act, employers may claim a limited refundable employment tax credit, subject to conditions.
[ymal]
Contributing authors to this piece include Bethan Carney and Karen Baxter of UK member firm, Lewis Silkin, Rachel Ziolkowski Ullrich, Sarah Pierce Wimberly and Jeffrey S. Ashendorf of US member firm, FordHarrison.
