Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
NatWest Markets admitted some of its traders in London, Singapore, and Connecticut were involved in a scheme to manipulate US Treasury market prices through a practice known as “spoofing” between 2008 and 2018.
In addition to paying the $35 million fine, NatWest Markets also agreed to serve three years of probation.
“As we have previously warned, there will be serious consequences for a company that breaches the terms of an agreement with the government. Today’s guilty plea by NatWest and the associated penalty show exactly that,” said Deputy Attorney General Lisa O Monaco. “Company executives should realise that investment in compliance programmes can avoid situations like this, and take action accordingly.”
NatWest Tuesday’s plea comes just over a week after the bank was fined £265 million by a court in the UK for failing to prevent the laundering of almost £400 million.
On Thursday, a Moscow court announced it had fined social media giant Twitter 3 million roubles for failing to take down content that is deemed illegal in Russia. The fine comes as part of a long string of penalties against foreign technology firms operating in the country.
Moscow has ramped up pressure on big tech firms this year in a campaign that critics view as an attempt by Russian authorities to exert tighter control over the internet, which they believe threatens to stifle both individual and corporate freedom.
The Moscow Tagansky District Court said it had fined Twitter 3 million roubles — equivalent to approximately $40,000 — for failing to delete banned content.
Microsoft-owned software development website GitHub has also been fined 1 million roubles for failing to take down illegal content and, earlier in the month, Alphabet’s Google was fined 9 million roubles for the same offence.
Twitter has denied allowing its platform to be used to promote illegal content in the country.
Bethany Yeiser, founder of the CureSZ Foundation, speaks to Lawyer Monthly about the importance of working with mental healthcare professionals and developing an understanding of how mental illness diagnoses and treatment options often intersect with the law.
When I was diagnosed with schizophrenia in 2007, I was certain my psychiatrist was wrong. I viewed schizophrenia as an emotional disease, a sign of personal weakness, and indicative of a flawed personality. I was unaware that schizophrenia is in fact a treatable disorder of the brain characterised by physiological changes in the prefrontal cortex and a chemically abnormal limbic system.
The initial antipsychotic medication that I took had severe side effects while not eliminating the voices in my mind. I discontinued this medication, which led to my second hospitalisation. Fortunately, the psychiatrist I met at the hospital threw me a lifeline: he explained that the right medication might enable me to return to my university studies.
Prior to schizophrenia, I was a biochemistry and molecular biology major and scholarship winner at the University of Southern California. The possibility of returning to school led me to become compliant with treatment.
I spent the next year trying different antipsychotics with very little success. The side effects of some of these medications included sleeping 16-18 hours a day, weight gain, muscle rigidity, anhedonia and akathisia. Finally, in 2008, I saw a new doctor, Henry Nasrallah, MD, who was passionate about my recovery, and willing to do whatever it took to get me back to life.
My hallucinations virtually disappeared when I began a medication called clozapine for treatment-resistant schizophrenia. In 2009, I enrolled at the University of Cincinnati where I completed my bachelor’s degree in molecular biology with a 3.83. In 2014, I published my memoir Mind Estranged, to document my journey from schizophrenia and homelessness to recovery. Dr Nasrallah and I established the CURESZ Foundation in 2016 to educate and help patients, families, healthcare professionals and the public understand schizophrenia and how to successfully cope with it and even recover from it.
One of the first people to read my memoir was a University of Cincinnati Law School Professor. This professor invited me to share my journey with his law students studying the intersection of psychiatry and the law, every fall semester. According to the American Bar Association, law firms value “soft skills” and being able to hear from someone with lived experiences first-hand may help law students empathise with this community, improve their sought-after skills and prepare for their professional work. I’m fortunate to help his students navigate such a complex and nuanced space and have been pleased to meet with his students eight times. There are several key messages I share with his students every year. Here are a few:
People with schizophrenia generally need an antipsychotic throughout life to correct the chemical imbalance inside the prefrontal cortex and in the limbic system. There is usually no diet, exercise regimen or other life changes that can wholly eliminate psychotic symptoms such as delusions and hallucinations.
I remember attending a dinner party years back where a law student suggested that people who hear voices are culpable for their behaviour because they can choose to do what the voice is saying or choose not to. This was not my experience. If I had been able to simply ignore the voices in my mind, I may have never been diagnosed with schizophrenia.
Though they are vastly overrepresented. In 2006, after dropping out of the University of Southern California, I found myself wandering aimlessly around the campus, homeless, looking for discarded food to eat. I was delusional and convinced that since I would win a Nobel Peace Prize, become a prophet and be awarded billions of dollars, I was welcome to search for discarded food. On October 16-18, 2006, I found myself in jail for allegedly trespassing on the same campus where I had once attended classes.
My experience in jail was different from anything I had imagined. I was locked in a cell made for one or two women, with three or four other people. Most of the rooms where I was incarcerated were pitch dark. I remember having fifteen minutes to sit in a small room with some translucent light coming through the roof, before being taken back to the cell with no light. And despite being acutely psychotic while incarcerated, I was never evaluated or offered mental health services.
The incarcerated mentally ill will more commonly exhibit behavioural problems, leading them to be held in solitary confinement. Solitary confinement can be a horrible experience for any person, but it is even more debilitating for people who are mentally ill.
When I was picked up by police on March 3, 2007, and taken to a hospital for the first time, my doctor determined that I was permanently and totally disabled after observing me for about 36 hours. He predicted I would never work again, attend college classes, or live independently.
The belief that persons with schizophrenia do not recover is prevalent in the public, and unfortunately, I have seen it in the medical community and even among psychiatrists. The assumption is that people with schizophrenia generally do not recover so why put forth the effort? My first psychiatrist never even considered underutilised and cutting-edge medications. But today, there is hope. My recovery is not the exception to the rule. The CURESZ Foundation features 32 stories of people thriving despite schizophrenia, and there are so many others I have yet to meet.
Lack of schizophrenia education is prevalent in our society, and it is imperative that we communicate relevant information to our medical students and law students. Every medical and law student should know that people with schizophrenia are ordinary people afflicted by a biological illness with the potential to recover.
My hope is that we will raise up a generation of leaders who will better understand the mentally ill population, reject labels and stigma, and fight for justice for the marginalised.
The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has rejected a bid by Apple Inc to block a shareholder proposal asking the tech giant to provide greater transparency in its effort to keep forced labour out of its supply chain.
Earlier this year, a group of shareholders asked Apple’s board to prepare a report on how it protects workers in its supply chain from forced labour. The information request covered the extent to which Apple has identified suppliers that are a risk for forced labour and how many suppliers the tech giant has taken action against.
In a letter seen by Reuters on Wednesday, the SEC rejected Apple’s bid to block the proposal. “It does not appear that the essential objectives of the proposal have been implemented" so far, the letter said. Consequently, Apple will have to face a vote on the proposal at its next annual shareholder meeting.
The SEC has also denied a recent request by the tech giant to skip a shareholder proposal that would give investors more information about Apple’s use of non-disclosure agreements.
Most law firms are hierarchical. In most cases, this causes bureaucracy inside the company processes and management, as well as a lack of communication and transparency. Luckily, some law companies have transitioned to ‘flatness’ in terms of business organisation. Very few of them were brave enough to implement a holacracy, the brand-new method of structuring and running an organisation that replaces conventional management.
Gartner’s recent Reimagine HR research suggests that companies who reduce layers connect with employees and see higher proportions of highly engaged employees (60% vs. an average of 40%). Some law firms have already implemented the flatter approach to managing workers, such as Cooley, DWF, and Axon Partners. Founded in 2016 by nine partners, Axon was looking toward a horizontal management structure. They knew little about holacracy, but after reading the book Holacracy: The Revolutionary Management System by Brian Robertson, they decided to try their luck in this approach.
Yana Bakalenko, the COO of Axon Partners, shares her memories:
“We wanted to create a firm that would reimagine legal services in the light of communication with the client and workflow management. Our clients are IT firms. We wanted to speak their language without black ties.”
Actually, many firms that approach holacracy are driven by the idea of transparent and equal communication where the client’s personality comes first (with no tie as a barrier).
Moreover, Larry Bridgesmith, Managing Partner of DASH.law, told us that in his experience in the US law firm environment, “flat” legal teams and organisations are the norm:
“Most legal matters are managed by a single supervising attorney. The teams are often unique to the matter and only as large as is necessary. This requires optimal staffing and efficient matter management. Few law firms routinely handle matters large enough to require stable or constant many-layered teams of legal professionals.
Of course, that would be different in corporate legal departments, which tend to be highly specialised, and tasks can be dedicated to specific members of the legal department staff. This can be a more hierarchical environment and less susceptible to flat matter management.”
Axon actively marketed its approach, and it became visible to many young lawyers who were looking for internship opportunities. “Our firm was easily found in Google as the one who implemented holacracy in its processes. Many freshers have already known that we were different from classic law firms,” Yana says. “Interns were impressed by the fact that they were given keys to the office. Newcomers are not forced by holacracy. They can start from being a host/moderator at the planning meeting.”
The Holacracy framework is built around circles and dynamic roles where everyone can take responsibility and contribute to a particular process. However, if a person took responsibility for something and then didn’t proceed with it, the lead-link (a role being the driver of the sub-Circle at the Super-Circle) just deletes his role or places another person in this role.
Top 3 facts Yana Bakalenko dislikes about hierarchy:
For most companies, it is still difficult to adhere to any management structure with zero losses. The good thing is that you may think critically about the necessity of implementing particular processes and decide whether you need them in your organisation. Axon Partners still has a formal hierarchy on the client side. This helps ensure quality and consistent results for the customer. While it is still far from the classic hierarchy, it’s more about structuring lawyers’ roles as junior or senior.
Bakalenko explains, “In internal processes, we completely implemented a holacracy. We started with the list of functions we have inside the company and dynamic roles (for instance, Climate controller or the host of the office). We use GlassFrog, a tool to create a clear holacracy structure and manage roles."
According to the Axon process, a new client inquiry drops into the circle of product owners (product owner is equal to a partner in a classical law firm). Typically, they discuss and appoint a team that will start to work with this client at the beginning of the week. The product owner describes the process to make it clear for the client, as well as a number of changes that can be made in a given package.
“Quality standard is limited to the Product Owners circle — they control how everything is going with the projects. All the atypical situations will be managed in this circle as well,” Yana Bakalenko says.
When choosing between holacracy and hierarchy, there are always a number of challenges. The best way to decide if either structure suits your needs is to think through the goal you are trying to achieve. Also, people can be main advocates or blockers on the way, so make sure that your team is on board.
Anastasia Pozynich
Lawrina’s mission is to improve legal practices in the changing world. This mission influences how the portal approaches its content and what it believes is important to present. If you want to learn more about innovative legal practice download the free eBook Lawyer’s Work and Productivity in a New Normal. Written by the Lawrina team and top legal innovators, this eBook contains 80+ pages of recent research and brand-new approaches to lawyer’s work, productivity and effective communication in a post-pandemic.
About the author: Anastasia Pozynich is the Product Marketing Manager at Lawrina.
The Volkswagen emissions scandal, often referred to as the dieselgate scandal, began in September 2015 when it emerged that the car giant had installed devices into its vehicles to rig its pollution emissions data. While the scandal initially appeared to be a German issue, it soon spread to other nations.
Over 90,000 people in the UK are seeking compensation after buying Volkswagen vehicles – including Audis, Skodas, and Seats – that were more damaging to the environment than the buyers had understood.
On Tuesday, the High Court Justice ruled against a Volkswagen attempt to have a claim of “deceit” removed.
So far, the car giant has spent approximately £25 billion globally on legal costs and compensation relating to the case. In the United States, Volkswagen agreed on payouts to drivers of between $5,100 and $40,000 depending on the models purchased.
In a statement, Volkswagen said, “We respect the Court’s view that the deceit claim is a complex matter which should be discussed in more detail at trial, in 2023. Volkswagen Group maintains there is no legal basis to the Claimants’ argument that customers were deceived by Volkswagen. We will robustly defend our view at trial.”
Amid the emergence of the Omicron variant of coronavirus, an increasing number of law firms in the United States are delaying large-scale office returns and introducing other Covid-19 measures to protect employees. One large US firm has told employees to work from home, while another is now explicitly requiring Covid-19 booster shots for staff.
On Monday, several large US firms confirmed that they were delaying their return-to-office dates, including Willkie Farr & Gallagher, Cooley, and Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo.
According to an email seen by Reuters, Debevoise & Plimpton told its employees on Friday to work remotely until January 7. The firm had planned for its lawyers to begin a gradual return plan by January 10. However, in the email seen by Reuters, presiding partner Michael Blair said that the firm will wait until early next month to review whether or not the plan should still go ahead.
Like many businesses, recent months have seen law firms struggling with the question of when and how to bring staff back into offices, even on a part-time basis. Some firms had planned to make the return last summer, but the spread of the Delta variant saw such plans upended for many.
Olga Beck-Friis, Co-founder and COO of PocketLaw, explains why digital transformation is essential for lawyers.
Despite mounting pressure to change, the legal world remains one of the last bastions of anti-innovation. Hooked on tradition and familiarity, lawyers have long held the sacred keys to legal information, but technology is changing this.
It gives me a huge sense of pride to say that I work in one of the oldest and most revered industries. But it also gives me a feeling of despondency, because so many aspects of law are still trapped in the past. No doctors reach for jars of leeches while in surgery, and no engineers install water wheels to run machines, yet barristers still wear 17th-century wigs and bow to the crown when entering the court. It turns out that old habits die hardest in the legal profession.
From agriculture to retail, education to healthcare, the 21st Century has prompted a digital overhaul of almost every sector. Yet, despite The Thomson Reuters’ State of the UK Legal Market 2021 report finding that 74 per cent of senior UK partners believe there should be more investment in legal tech, the sector is still digging in its heels.
Digital transformation can be a daunting prospect and does take time to implement, but it’s time well spent. As with banks using mobile apps and doctor’s surgeries encouraging patients to be diagnosed online during the pandemic, lawyers need to adapt quickly and explore tech to help improve efficiency and user experience.
Since the start of the pandemic, companies and corporations worldwide have been working hard to adapt to a new way of working. According to a global survey of executives from management consultancy firm McKinsey & Company, many companies have accelerated the digitisation of their customer and supply-chain interactions and internal operations by three to four years. In April 2020, Satya Nadella, Microsoft’s Chief Executive, echoed this, stating that the world went through “two years’ worth of digital transformation in two months”.
The adoption of digital innovation will understandably lead to lawyers having to learn new skills and develop appropriate delivery models. There are tech systems that can help draft documents, undertake legal research, disclose documents in litigation, provide legal guidance, and resolve disputes online. Technology can enable lawyers to spend more time practising law, rather than engaging in more routine or less efficient tasks.
It’s not just the lawyers that need to be considered when looking at how best to improve the efficiency of the sector. We also need to consider making it more user-friendly for customers and those seeking legal advice but who don’t know how to get it. According to the Centre for Economics and Business Research (CEBR), small businesses in the UK lose up to £13.6 billion every year due to their failure to take care of legal matters. The inaccessible and inefficient nature of legal access is costing British businesses exorbitant amounts of money.
There is also concern from digital transformation naysayers who have identified barriers that could put themselves, and their customers in jeopardy, such as cyber security breaches, gaining support from stakeholders, the time-consuming task of logging historical data, and managing billable hours. All of these issues are valid, but they can be easily managed and shouldn’t deter people from opting for a digital upgrade.
Innovations, such as legal tech platforms, can provide the solution to a lot of problems. At PocketLaw, for example, we act as a digital in-house lawyer for businesses of any size, solving their legal challenges by automating tasks and negating the need for expensive external counsel. Our mission is fueled by the belief that every company deserves access to affordable legal services, and to feel safe and equipped in handling their legal needs themselves.
Digital tools will never replace the human ability to work out complicated aspects of legal practice and lateral thinking. Instead, lawyers should look at digitisation as adding newly improved tools to their skill set, allowing them to do their job even better, rather than be a threat to their existence.
Legal tech exists to empower lawyers to do their job to the best of their ability. Not only will the digitisation of the legal sector vastly benefit entrepreneurs and business leaders, but it will also help lawyers themselves. By automating time-consuming, repetitive tasks, lawyers can reattribute their time and attention into completing jobs that inspired them to train in the first place, practising the challenging and intriguingly complex side of the law.
As the ambitious barrister, Sir Robert Morton, states in Terrance Rattigan’s play, ‘The Winslow Boy’ - “To fight a case on emotional grounds is the surest way of losing it. Emotions muddy the issue. Cold, clear logic - and buckets of it - should be the lawyer’s only equipment.”
On Monday, the United States filed a civil forfeiture complaint to return over $150 million to a subsidiary of Tokyo-based Sony Corp after the funds were allegedly stolen then seized by law enforcement during the FBI’s investigation of the incident.
Back in May, an employee of Sony Life Insurance Company Ltd in Tokyo allegedly embezzled the property then converted it to over 3,879 bitcoins now valued at more than $180 million, according to the US Justice Department’s statement.
On Dec 1, the funds were seized by law enforcement based on the FBI’s investigation.
The employee, Rei Ishii, allegedly falsified transaction instructions which led the funds to be transferred to an account he controlled at a bank in California. The funds were then converted into bitcoin, according to the complaint filed in federal court in the Southern District of California.
The US Justice Department said that “all the bitcoins traceable to the theft have been recovered” and that Ishii has been criminally charged in Japan.
Meanwhile, acting US attorney Randy Grossman said, "It is our intent to return the stolen money to the victim of this audacious theft, and today's action helps us do that.”
“This case is an example of amazing work by FBI agents and Japanese law enforcement, who teamed up to track this virtual cash. Criminals should take note: You cannot rely on cryptocurrency to hide your ill-gotten gains from law enforcement."
To cope with all the concerns described above, many families engage a probate attorney. Yet, a will lawyer may have been appointed to the issue earlier to the death of the person whose affairs are being handled. All payments involved with the succession procedure, including the maintenance and legal fees, are compensated out from the inheritance of the deceased.
The will is a statutory statement that specifies your desires for the distribution of assets and the management of children. Such desires may not have been borne out if you pass without a will. Furthermore, your descendants may eventually spend more time, cost, and mental engagement after you pass away to resolve your accounts.
Will range in efficacy according to the kind, but no paper is likely to settle every difficulty that emerges following your demise. What you want or need to learn about some of these important papers is outlined below.
A will is a legal document that outlines your preferences for the welfare of your family and the disposal of your possessions when you pass away. Inability to draft a will usually puts your assets in the power of courts or state agencies, leading to domestic turmoil. You may write a legitimate will on your own, but you really should get it notarised to reduce the chances of subsequent legal disputes. Try getting your will created by foundations and a will lawyer to ensure all is in order.
Some individuals believe that wills are only necessary for the rich or those with complicated holdings. There are, nonetheless, several reasonable grounds to create a will.
Probate could be a tiresome task, but it is usually left to specialists. Throughout most circumstances, the deceased's testament names a successor. It might be a private entity, but it's usually an attorney. The attorney is in charge of gathering and presenting the relevant paperwork to begin and complete the probate procedure.
When there is no will and no successor is designated, the executor might just be a family member or someone selected by the families of the dead. Furthermore, a tribunal must evaluate that the character called executor is qualified for the job and grant someone the authority to do it. If conventional probate measures are not required – such as court proceedings – a friend or relative or a sibling of the dead takes on the position of executor and generally enlists the help of a lawyer to ensure that all procedures are being followed correctly.
The probate procedure essentially implies that the appointed executor is accountable for splitting and transferring assets, paying off a mortgage, and ensuring that the decedent's inheritance is delivered as anticipated. If a will is properly stated out, there should be no disagreements, and the designated executor is inclined to follow it.
