Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
Idera, Inc., parent company of global B2B software productivity brands, has announced the acquisition of Xblend Software, the provider of two leading Atlassian Marketplace applications: Xray, the top-ranked tool for Jira test management, and Xporter, a Jira-based reporting and issue exporting tool.
Xblend’s product range is utilised by approximately 10 million Jira-based users globally, including major multinational companies such as BMW, Disney, JP Morgan, Lufthansa, NASA, Nike, Porsche, Samsung and Vodafone. Following the acquisition, Xray and Xporter will become part of Idera’s DevOps business unit, strengthening the company’s ability to serve development, testing, QA, and DevOps teams in the Atlassian ecosystem.
“We are excited to welcome Xray and Xporter to the Idera family,” said Tyler Parramore, General Manager of Idera’s DevOps Business. “Both brands demonstrate a commitment to high-quality, focused solutions with clear value to customers. Xray, in particular, will significantly improve our ability to reach customers in the Atlassian ecosystem and will join TestRail and Ranorex to enhance Idera’s premier DevTestOps offering.”
An Interview With Paolo Pozzan Advogados (PPA)
What expert knowledge did your team bring to this deal?
Our team (composed by Paolo Pozzan, Silvia Gil Soares and Rute Lourenço) assisted Idera Inc. in all matters relating to Portuguese law. From the regulations applicable to the operation, legal Due Diligence on the target company, adaptation of the SPA considering the Portuguese legislation as well as assistance at closing and in all post-closing operations.
Were any challenges encountered during the acquisition? How did you overcome them?
The biggest challenges were found in the analysis of national and EU regulations related to acquisitions of this relevance when made directly by an entity headquartered outside the EU and in a period of pandemic crisis in which many EU states have adopted protectionist norms against possible hostile takeovers from companies based outside the EU. The issue of data migration outside the EU also raised some challenges considering the EU General Data Protection Regulation. In the specific case, in addition to the study of national and EU legislation, it was necessary to verify the impact of the operation on the internal market in the light of the rules of the regulatory bodies.
What factors need to be considered in the acquisition of B2B software brands such as this?
In our view, the most important factors in IT acquisitions are linked to the verification of copyright and industrial property rights associated with software, and of course also any contractual part associated with supplies and distribution and user contract EULAs, with special attention to the clauses of “change control”.
DP Group, holding company of DentalPro, announced a corporate reorganisation to simplify the group’s structure through the merger of 70 companies that are active in the management of the group’s dental clinics.
Several law firms assisted DP Group on this operation. A team from Studio Legale Stefanelli & Stefanelli comprising founding partner Silvia Stefanelli and associate Giorgia Verlato advised on administrative profiles, while tax profiles were handled by a team from Facchini Rossi Michelutti. Labour law aspects were handled by Lupi Law Firm and notorial aspects by De Vivo Tacchini Cecala & Associates.
An Interview With Silvia Stefanelli at Studio Legale Stefanelli&Stefanelli
What crucial aspects need to be considered when working on a corporate reorganisation?
In mergers in the health sector, the most relevant element is the transfer of health authorisations and any existing contracts with the public administration.
This element is often underestimated when initiating a merger, but it is crucial in this area, as the authorisation is the legal prerequisite for being able to provide healthcare services. It follows that, if the transfer of authorisation is not carried out correctly, there is a risk that the facility may have to be closed until the procedure is duly completed.
Did you encounter any challenges while working on this merger? If so, how did you overcome them?
In Italy, regulations on health authorisations are regional and often the various competent bodies (in most cases, municipalities) follow different procedures even within the same region.
It is therefore necessary to have a highly detailed knowledge of the different regional regulations and the procedures of the individual municipalities. This is an activity that our law firm has been carrying out for years, so we have developed a thorough knowledge of the relevant legal framework and have established good contacts with public administrations.
What was the significance of this merger? Do you expect to work on further projects like this in the future?
The National Recovery and Resilience Plan (PNRR), Italy’s response to the NextGenerationEU programme, is aimed at relaunching the country after the COVID-19 crisis, partly through an extensive development of digital health projects. This new design of the Italian healthcare system will undoubtedly bring in investment funds promoting projects for the reorganisation of existing health facilities with a view to greater sustainability. Hence, M&A activity in this area is bound to increase. In this respect, we also foresee many acquisitions and sales in the medical devices area. The new EU Reg. 2017/745 (which became fully effective on 26 May 2021) is already transforming the medical software sector, thus leading to new market dynamics.
UBFP Studio Legale and Pavia e Ansaldo assisted European customs sector organisation Customs Support Group in the acquisition of the entire share capital of Ser.Nav, a company active in the customs consultancy and shipping agency sector.
The acquisition is intended to strengthen Customs Support Group’s strategy of penetrating the Italian market through an established operator which, with its presence in 17 strategic locations, guarantees operations with the main commercial ports and logistics hubs in Italy. The acquisition was made through the newco CS Italy.
Customs Support Group was assisted by UBFP Studio Legale, with partners Luca Piemontese and Elena Fraternali handling the customs aspects of the operation. Pavia e Ansaldo, with partner Anna Saraceno and associate Giovanni Gila assisting on the corporate and commercial aspects and partner Valentina Simonelli on the labour aspects. PwC TLS and KPMG also provided assistance on tax and financial aspects respectively. Ser.Nav was assisted by Giovannelli e Associati and Equita K Finance.
An Interview With Luca Piemontese & Elena Fraternali at UBFP Law Firm
What are your top concerns when advising on a significant acquisition like this?
The most relevant aspect to take into consideration is the risk assessment related to the acquisition. Customs brokers’ activity has several potential risks regarding the customs liability, so the evaluation of the compliance with the law assumes significant importance. Another aspect that we must consider is that, even if the customs system is regulated at an EU level, every Member State has particularities and it is essential to consider these different approaches with reference to the acquisition.
How do you work through these concerns to make sure the move is a beneficial one for your client?
Normally, we try to identify the sensitive aspects of the transaction and to find possible solutions that can be suitable to the customer’s business and that can be adopted by the latter with immediate effect.
If it is not possible to avoid certain risks, it is necessary to insert in the agreement specific provisions as representation and warranties, in order to make the Seller liable for potential damages occurred after closing but arising from critical issues already existing before Closing.
What customs issues have the potential to arise in mergers of this kind? Did you encounter any during your work?
From a customs point of view, the aspects to be taken into greater consideration concern the type of representation used by the customs broker for the submission of customs declarations. If the latter uses indirect representation, the customer must be aware that it would be co-liable with the goods’ owner for any assessment related to customs declarations, until the expiry of the statute of limitation of the customs debt. In our work, we encountered this problem connected to several disputes that involved the customs broker who had acted in indirect representation.
Law has long been, and still is, known as the burnout profession, an association unbecoming of what is widely considered a most prestigious profession.
Sure, law firms do what they can to look after the wellbeing of their employees, but the hard truth is that burnout is still incredibly pervasive. Why? Because meaningful steps to change burnout culture into a true wellbeing culture have not been a priority for most firms. Many might even say they are not in the business of personal and professional life optimisation – that is traditionally the sole responsibility of the individual. We know that what happens within offices and behind desks remains heavily influenced by what peers do, and thus, this culture of ‘bite the bullet, burn out or die out’ wins out.
Trainees, associates and partners all work extremely hard and face pressures unique to their positions. Partners are under pressure to keep clients happy and ensure the firm delivers on key performance metrics. Associates are up to their necks in workload, with the added pressure of trying to make partner. And trainees, while being slightly terrified, want to impress everyone. They want to get the best seat, be an excellent liaison within the firm and please their associates, all the while making sure that partners can see all the heavy lifting they are doing. The work cannot be underestimated and is an enormous amount of pressure. As trainees progress through the hierarchy, the cumulative chronic stress becomes greater. The longer you are exposed, the more likely you are to succumb to the negative aspects.
Trainees, associates and partners all work extremely hard and face pressures unique to their positions.
Working ‘hard’ and pushing yourself beyond even your maximum limit is still perceived as a status symbol. The race to clock in the most billable hours as a sign of stellar performance is real. The stakes are high and the rewards are huge: the social prestige, working with industry-leading clients, the financial incentives and glorious paychecks, and the sense of belonging to an intellectual elite.
These are things that many people, myself included at one time, would be willing to sacrifice a lot for. It is this tunnel-vision approach that means many lawyers are blind to the signs of burnout and cannot or do not want to take proactive measures to mitigate against chronic stress. Instead, they mask the warning signs and opt for a quick fix, i.e. another coffee or another late night in order to power through. After all, that is what everyone else seems to be doing, so it is logical to think that it is the most successful coping and success strategy.
Whilst intellectually challenging, as lawyers are consistently performing brain gymnastics, law is also one of the most physically sedentary professions. This combination of continuous and extraordinarily demanding mental focus with long periods of sedentary work make burnout particularly prevalent.
The damage is physical, emotional and psychological. Over years, it accumulates into a state of total exhaustion and can lead to mental and physical collapse. Research shows that almost every system in the body is impacted by chronic stress and when it goes untreated, it suppresses the body’s immune system which can lead to illness. Not only do these effects become detrimental to the person's health, but they also begin to impact family, work and social relations.
Whilst intellectually challenging, as lawyers are consistently performing brain gymnastics, law is also one of the most physically sedentary professions.
I remember working to an early morning deadline for one of my former firm’s largest clients. There were more than a dozen of us on the case and we all had a sense of needing to power through it, so we pulled an all-nighter as none of us wanted to show signs of weakness. In fact, I used to consider myself an endurance marathon-runner of legal nights.
Despite the exhaustion and concerns from family and friends, I could not wait to get back into the office the next morning after only a couple of hours of sleep. I was on an adrenaline-cortisol-excitement-pride-fear kind of ‘high’. It was thrilling to be part of something so big. The sleepless nights (sleep often ended up as a non-consideration), the upset spouse, irregular meals, personal sacrifices and my ‘Red Bull Bercocca’ magic potion to start off the day and last through the night, all seemed worth it each time I opened an email to positive feedback from a client.
I was so invested in the work that I overlooked my own health and basic wellbeing needs. I was just mimicking what seemed to be the norm within my industry, until the chronic stress caught up and I burned out. It never occurred to me that chronic stress could have such negative effects.
Overthe past ten years, I have had many connections and peers who have left the industry due to exhaustion, been severely burned out, had mental breakdowns, been diagnosed with work-induced health issues, and even made attempts on their lives. And this is just my personal and professional circle. If we extend it to the legal industry at large, these issues affect thousands of people every day, globally, across all jurisdictions, ages, cultures and genders.
[ymal]
What is important is not so much the number of people who make it to becoming a lawyer as much as the number of lawyers who can sustain being a lawyer through their whole career while maintaining a healthy body, mind and life. Unfortunately, I was not one of them, so my mission now is to make that possible for as many lawyers as I can.
Although the industry is robust, and it may seem like there are plenty of lawyers to go around, it urgently needs a culture shift now for any lasting change to happen. We owe it to all those who work in the profession to commit to doing this.
Law firms do implement some good wellbeing initiatives. But while lunchtime yoga, some healthy lunch options and subsidised gym memberships are great and should be maintained, these are far from being enough.
The change that needs to be made is deeply rooted in the culture of ‘law life’ itself and should start at law school and university. The culture is already endemic at university – the competition to get the most prestigious summer vacation scheme is brutal, and then comes the pressure of getting top grades to obtain the holy grail: the training contract.
The change that needs to be made is deeply rooted in the culture of ‘law life’ itself and should start at law school and university.
Law firms should encourage vacation schemers, all the way up to senior partners, to attend and contribute to wellness seminars, learn about wellness optimisation tools and techniques, and have regular check-ins with professional wellness consultants to properly foster wellness as a culture. Law firms are great at building presence at law fairs to attract young talent, so why not educate them about the benefits of proactively looking after their health from the outset?
On an individual level, it is important to build and maintain healthy habits. This means that sleeping adequately, spending more time outdoors outside of in working hours, taking regular breaks, learning how to breathe well to regulate stress, eating nutritious food, practicing mindfulness techniques and exercising regularly, can have a significant impact on whether you thrive or burn out.
Partner with fellow colleagues to implement these habits. Why not encourage a ‘walk and talk’ group instead of a sit-down brainstorming session? And push for regular wellness workshops so all lawyers are educated individually on the benefits of cultivating wellness for performance. It is about shifting the mindset around health and wellness from a ‘nice-to-have’ to a ‘non-negotiable’. Ultimately, a healthier lawyer can only be a better lawyer, and better lawyers collectively make better law firms! It is a win-win-win situation.
Charlène Gisèle is a health coach and consultant dubbed the “Soulicitor” by her clients. A former London lawyer, Charlène coaches her clients on personal and professional life optimization through a combination of diet, exercise and lifestyle shifts.
Website: charlenegisele.com
We live in challenging times. Quite apart from the widespread disruption that COVID has wrought on all of our lives, you could be forgiven for thinking that we were in the middle of some kind of ‘cyber war’. Not a day seems to go by without another headline telling us about the latest cyberattack, data theft or ransomware scenario. And for reasons that we will cover here, the pandemic has actually brought cybersecurity very much to the fore due to the technology demands placed by a largely remote and network-challenged workforce.
The legal profession is no different in this respect. Imagine having to tell all of your clients that cybercriminals were now in receipt of all of their data. Law firms handle significant volumes of confidential and sensitive information and client funds as part of their daily work. Like many other sectors, the legal profession is delivering and transacting in an increasingly online fashion – indeed, there is a drive to become paperless. Firms need to be especially attentive towards the threat of any cyberattack, taking into account the massive amount of sensitive and important client data held in their information systems.
This is not a pie-in-the-sky scenario. Just recently we heard that the law firm acting for companies such as Ford, Boeing, Exxon, Marriott, Walgreen and others was hacked in an apparent ransomware attack. In this attack it is feared that social security numbers, passport numbers, payment card information, medical information and biometric data were all stolen by cybercriminals. Here in the UK, the London Stock Exchange recently revealed a filing by a UK-listed law firm which had suffered a cyberattack. Once again, sensitive client information was compromised.
Imagine having to tell all of your clients that cybercriminals were now in receipt of all of their data.
We touched on the additional challenges that COVID has presented from a technological point of view. The UK has seen massive growth in both remote working and working on the move due to the pandemic, and the legal sector is very much included here. As we witness mobile and smart device usage continuing to grow, it brings about a corresponding rise in mobile security threats. Indeed, some reports even suggest that mobile devices could now account for more than 60% of digital fraud. As firms see a significant increase in people using their mobile devices for both work and personal use, they will need to face up to an entirely new set of challenges. This updated landscape requires a contemporary way of thinking (and new solutions) in order for legal firms to defend themselves against cybercriminals.
With people increasingly working under a ‘hybrid’ model (a mix of working from home, the office and on the road), we look to technology to afford us the flexibility and ability to work anywhere. With most workers no longer effectively tethered to a desk, firms require security platforms that support the new normal with solutions that provide remote workers with security whilst actively improving the employee experience. Firms need to ensure that employees are able to work on any device, which makes tools like multi-factor authentication and a zero-trust approach to security absolutely crucial.
[ymal]
Organisations everywhere are adopting a ‘zero-trust’ approach which places greater importance on identifying the real-time health of a user’s device and the ability to provide conditional access to corporate data as a result. Zero-trust security is all about eliminating implicit trust. Effectively, it is an interrogation of trust within networks or the trust between host and applications. Zero-trust implies that the best way to secure a network is to assume no level of trust whatsoever. Employing a zero-trust model supposes that no single person is able to solely execute any sort of change to the system that could affect the security of the system.
One way to make this happen is to effectively replace human vulnerabilities with automation. In all things ‘security’, humans are invariably the weakest point in any chain. Firms can mollify human error by adopting single sign-on solutions and strengthening security controls that oversee how and where employees get access to specific data.
A CASB solution can optimise visibility across an organisation by monitoring all user activity within cloud applications (company-approved and shadow apps) and enforcing both internal policies and external compliance requirements. A CASB solution should additionally be adopted as part of a wider SIM/SIEM solution for the ultimate in forward-looking, secure data collection, monitoring, and consolidation. Many CASB solutions are designed with compliance in mind. They provide granular visibility and control over user interaction with cloud applications and broad audit trails of such user activity. They tend to operate as a system that is partly a filter, proxy and firewall between the users and cloud systems, and have capabilities to detect unsanctioned cloud applications, as well as sensitive data in transit.
In all things ‘security’, humans are invariably the weakest point in any chain.
Organisations can use CASBs to address specific use cases with their cloud providers and are perfect for centralised control, management and ease of use. With so much going on in the cloud as businesses strive to provide increased levels of remote access, there is the potential for data leakage in the cloud. Using a CASB gives organisations the power to maintain visibility over data that has gone beyond the reach of on-premises tools. Detailed logs on all cloud transactions (logins, uploads, or downloads) are always recorded and app-specific behaviours are also logged, helping organisations know the whereabouts of data if it is shared.
The NCSC essentially sets out to help make the UK a safe place to live and work online. Amongst other things, they provide schemes that can help your firm strengthen cybersecurity. For example, Cyber Essentials is a simple but effective Government-backed scheme that will help you to protect your firm against a whole range of the most common cyberattacks. It can help you to guard against the most common cyber threats and demonstrate your commitment to cybersecurity. It can also reassure your clients that you are working to secure your IT against cyberattacks, and can even help to attract new clients with the promise you have cyber security measures in place. Cyber Essentials Plus adopts the Cyber Essentials trademark simplicity of approach but includes a hands-on technical verification. However, it is worrying to read research by Law.com that found that 40% of the leading 50 UK law firms still do not have the highest level of cybersecurity accreditation offered by Cyber Essentials Plus.
Cybersecurity has never been so important – whatever industry you work in. The pandemic has provided firms with technology challenges while also giving cybercriminals an increased surface area for attacks. With COVID continuing to have an impact on remote working and working on the move, it is critical that your firm enjoys maximum protection against the development of any new cyber threats. Law firms are increasingly reliant on IT and technology which can leave them vulnerable to a whole host of malevolent cyber activity. If a firm loses access to their technology, has funds stolen or suffers any kind of data breach through a cyberattack, it can be devastating – financially and reputationally.
Steve Whiter, Director
Appurity
Address: Appurity Limited, Farnham, United Kingdom, GU10 5DT
Tel: +44 (0)330 660 0277
Email: info@appurity.co.uk
Website: appurity.co.uk
Appurity is a UK-based company that offers mobile, cloud, data and cybersecurity solutions and applications to businesses. Its staff draw upon a wealth of in-depth knowledge in industry-leading technologies to aid their clients in developing secure and efficient mobile strategies.
Steve Whiter has been in the industry for 30 years and has extensive knowledge of secure mobile solutions. For over 10 years, Steve has worked with the team at Appurity to provide customers with secure mobile solutions and apps that enhance productivity but also meet regulations such as ISO and Cyber Essentials Plus. Working closely with its technology partners that include Lookout, NetMotion, Google, Apple, Samsung, BlackBerry and MobileIron/Ivanti, Appurity is delivering mobile initiatives to customers across multiple verticals such as legal, financial, retail and public sector.
A lawyer’s average workweek is approximately 49.6 hours, with many of these work hours creeping into evenings, weekends, and public holidays. Regardless of how rewarding a career in law might be, it can be undeniably stressful. In fact, lawyers are the most likely to suffer from depression compared with other occupations, according to a National Institute of Mental Health study. One can speculate whether stress, case matter, long hours, or a combination of them all are to blame, but the study clearly demonstrates the need to carefully consider mental health and family dynamics that can undoubtedly be affected by long working hours. With this in mind, check out our six reasons why an African safari is an ideal holiday for busy lawyers and their families.
Going totally off the grid is not often feasible for a lawyer. Many will relate to legal professional Dennis Hernandez who said that completely disconnecting is not an option for him as a founding partner. You need to be on call to answer essential questions, sign documents, and keep up to date on case proceedings. Many luxury safari lodges offer free internet access, so you can enjoy quality family time without worrying about what’s happening back in the office.
Daily life as a lawyer with a family is hectic. There is almost always something going on between work functions, extracurricular activities, and family events. Enjoying some peace and quiet far away from the stress of home life is relaxing and refreshing.
African safaris are superb for practising social distancing. Many luxury safari lodges in the Zambezi region, on offer through groups like Africa’s Eden, can be exclusively booked on an all-inclusive basis. You may also get the services of a private safari guide for the duration of your holiday. The safety and security of safari guests are of paramount importance in the African bush.
A typical day on an African safari involves a very early start. However, unlike dragging yourself out of bed to a blaring alarm clock, you’ll be greeted with a light knock on the door and a tray of hot coffee, tea, and rusks. The anticipation of your family will be palpable as you depart for a game drive searching for elephants, lions, giraffes, zebras, warthogs, and much more. You never quite know what unexpected wildlife sightings are in store.
The ideal time for game viewing is just after the crack of dawn and in the late afternoon. Of course, this means that siestas are the norm in any safari camp. While we relish an afternoon nap like a gift from the gods, this also offers you time to catch up on any necessary work commitments. The best part is that your whole family will be relaxing, whether by the pool or curled up with their Kindle, so no one will be nagging you to stop working if the need calls.
A safari in Africa will provide your family with plenty of humorous, thrilling and you-just-had-to-be-there anecdotes for years to come. Whether your children are just entering kindergarten or well on their way to starting their own family, the memories made will be priceless. We are confident that you won’t regret prioritising time with your family.
Restoring a work-life balance that prioritises spending both quality and quantity time with family can take a major overhaul. A safari in Africa can be just the ticket for understanding how to be fully present in all aspects of your life.
As with so many other sectors, 2021 continues to be a challenge for the legal sector. The demands of remote working, coupled with pandemic-related employment law and family disputes, has piled the pressure on law firms.
On top of this, law firm marketers have a new obstacle to overcome: the latest Google update. In June 2021, Google began rolling out its Page Experience update, warning webmasters of three new “Core Web Vitals” guidelines to follow. Not only do law firms have to continue making great content; they also have to ensure this content is accessible.
So, which law firms are stepping up to the plate and adhering to the latest search engine optimisation guidance? Between March and April 2021, the Legmark team gathered data for our annual legal sector website analysis report.
The report features a custom-made scoring system out of 100, outlining a law firm’s online performance based on crucial SEO factors. These are a delicate balance of on-site metrics, such as keywords, total traffic and site speed, and off-site metrics, such as referring domains and domain rating.
Our ranking system considers factors from Google’s Core Web Vitals, such as page speed, but also looks at the broader “perfect recipe” for a high-ranking site. Additionally, for the first time in 2021, we gathered year-on-year data to name the most-improved law firms of the year. So, who comes out on top?
[ymal]
In first place, Wigan-based Stephensons showed outstanding progress in 2021. This is pertinent for two reasons. Firstly, our data was gathered from The Lawyer’s top 200 UK law firms based on revenue. Stephensons ranks at a very modest 148th in terms of revenue, proving that large firms do not always come out on top.
Secondly, Stephensons has jumped massively from 2020, climbing 39 places in our custom-made scoring system. This is thanks to a significant investment in page speed. The firm scored 196 out of 200 and 198 out of 200 for desktop and mobile speed respectively – showing that it is ahead of the curve by Google’s standards.
Similar to Stephensons, Lindsays is also a relatively small law firm, ranking at just 153rd place in terms of revenue. That has not stopped the firm from climbing 11 places this year to second place in our Legmark Index.
Perhaps more interesting, when we compare the firm’s performance against Stephensons’, is the difference in individual metric scores. While Stephensons tops the charts for desktop and mobile speed, Lindsays scores 122 for desktop – though it boasts a very impressive 198 for mobile speed.
However, while Stephensons also ranks highly for traffic and total keywords, Lindsays flourishes with its domain rating. This proves that the firm has invested heavily in its off-site reputation, acquiring links from reputable sources to improve all-round performance.
While Stephensons also ranks highly for traffic and total keywords, Lindsays flourishes with its domain rating.
Not surprisingly, we see one of the UK’s largest law firms (ranked 25th by revenue) in third place. We have used Irwin Mitchell as an example of the “perfect site” when it comes to ticking all the boxes for Google. Our radar graph analysis shows that Irwin Mitchell is just shy of 200 on almost all metrics – with total traffic scoring an impressive 200/200!
So, what is it that stops Irwin Mitchell from coming in first place based on our index? Firstly, let’s remember that the system is weighted – so one metric may have more value than another. For example, mobile speed is considered top priority when we remember factors such as ‘Mobilegeddon’, or, more recently, Core Web Vitals.
Secondly, as an established brand, Irwin Mitchell may also be relying on brand name searches rather than specific “X law firm” keywords. As a full-service firm, it is safe to say Irwin Mitchell has high-value keyword coverage. The firm’s value per keyword score, based on the equivalent cost to rank for a paid ad, comes in at 197.
However, where Irwin Mitchell falls relatively short is total keywords. Again, as a full-service firm, it faces the challenge of trying to rank for anything and everything, but may be a victim of its own success. Our research revealed that 15,000 searches for “Irwin Mitchell” are made each month. This is great for brand awareness, but the firm scores 179 for total keywords, showing it could rank for marginally more.
As a full-service firm, it is safe to say Irwin Mitchell has high-value keyword coverage.
While it is important to learn from the best-performing law firms of 2021, we must also consider those that have improved the most. Let’s not forget that search engine optimisation is constantly changing, so those firms that have improved in the here and now are hugely significant.
The top three most-improved firms for 2021 did not make the top 10 overall, but they have come on in leaps and bounds.
This innovative firm is shaking things up for the legal sector. Established in 2010, the firm says it does not believe in “law as usual” and instead works on a franchise model, only recruiting lawyers with more than 10,000 hours’ experience.
As a relatively young firm, Gunnercooke will need time before they can climb the ranks in terms of domain rating or referring domains. But they have harnessed the power of page experience, topping the charts at 200/200 for mobile speed. As a result, they have climbed 165 places in the rankings from 2020. With a little investment in off-site SEO, the rest of the ranking factors will follow.
As a relatively young firm, Gunnercooke will need time before they can climb the ranks in terms of domain rating or referring domains.
Kennedys is considerably larger than Gunnercooke, at 27 in the revenue index compared to Gunnercooke’s 109. This may have helped the team fund their investment in reputation-building between 2020 and 2021.
Kennedys has climbed 132 places this year in our Legmark Index, and the figures suggest this is all down to domain rating and referring domains. This is excellent news as a law firm – a sector that relies on reputation. For even better performance, Kennedys should now focus on site speeds.
When we compare Sills & Betteridge to Kennedys, it is almost a mirror image. This firm, which has climbed 113 places in 2021, has invested heavily in mobile and desktop speed. It goes to show once again that law firms must look at “the whole pie” when improving their search rankings.
Sills & Betteridge may have got the “quick wins” for now – but they should follow the lead of Kennedys to build up their backlink profile (and of course, Kennedys should follow Sills & Betteridge’s lead on page speed).
If there is anything that our 2021 report has proven, it is that no single factor makes or breaks organic search performance. Indeed, page experience and loading speeds continue to become more prominent, but we cannot overlook content, particularly in the legal industry.
If there is anything that our 2021 report has proven, it is that no single factor makes or breaks organic search performance.
Our full report looks at each ranking factor in detail, with some eye-opening results – including how smaller firms are topping the charts. It is a positive outlook for all UK firms, then, proving that revenue does not always equal competitive advantage. With the right investment, any firm can compete with “the big guys”.
The Legmark 2021 Legal Sector Website Performance Analysis is available to download now.
Sam Borrett, Director
Legmark
Address: 5300 Lakeside, Cheadle Royal Business Park, Cheshire, SK8 3GP
Tel: +44 (0)161 818 8448
Email: hello@legmark.com
Website: legmark.com
Legmark is a digital marketing consultancy that offers legal marketing, digital marketing and communications for law firms. Legmark can also offer advice on social media, content marketing and customer retention.
Sam Borrett is a nationally regarded marketing expert with expertise in delivering for the legal sector. He works for a range of clients in the sector on business development, SEO, website performance and several other areas, and has won several awards for his marketing and PR campaigns.
One of the positive aspects of a 15-month lockdown has been the fact that many employees have now successfully shown to their employers that they are able to work from home. The initial fears of employees binge-watching box sets of Game of Thrones in their pyjamas all day have proved to be unfounded.
Despite a perception that the whole country was working from home in the first lockdown, an Office for National Statistics survey published in July 2020 showed that, of the 46.4% of people in employment who were working from home in April 2020, 86% were doing so as a result of the pandemic. Although 34.4% worked fewer hours than usual, 30.3% were working more hours.
There have been many anecdotal reports of employees being burned out and stressed. In some cases, this was due to an inability to set clear boundaries between working and homelife and the temptation to just ‘have a quick look’ at the inbox before going to bed. However, other causes have been as a result of managers and colleagues sending emails and expecting a response – or scheduling calls and Zoom meetings – out of hours and at weekends.
In Europe, France introduced legislation allowing employees to disconnect outside the business’s core hours and not suffer a detriment (e.g. to pay rises or promotions) for doing so. Their code came into effect on 1 January 2017 and was intended to stop employers from encroaching on family. An annual negotiation between employer and employees takes place about where the boundaries lie. Italy followed in 2017 and Spain in 2018. However, German lawmakers have not followed the same path but instead tried to tackle the issue by reaching an agreement with the large employers and using technology to enforce it. This includes putting in place software which prevents certain categories of employee from accessing company emails on their smartphones between certain hours.
There have been many anecdotal reports of employees being burned out and stressed.
In April this year, Ireland implemented a Right to Disconnect Code. Under this code, all employees whether home-working or office -based have the right to not routinely work outside normal working hours (appreciating that sometimes it might be necessary); not be subjected to a detriment for refusing to deal with work out of hours; and a duty to respect another employee’s right to disconnect. The code does not specify what ‘normal working hours’ are. The code also addresses the issues of doing work in different time zones and asks employers to manage expectations that their staff doing international business will only reply to emails during their own working day. It recommends training for managers to spot those not obeying the rules.
So, with the UK lagging behind putting in place safeguards for overworked employees, the calls for a Right to Disconnect clause to be included in the Employment Bill – due out later this year – remain louder than ever. Just this month the trade union Prospect asked the Government to legislate to ban out-of-hours emails from bosses and for a legally binding Right to Disconnect.
Some argue that this is not strictly necessary, as there is already legislation in place to protect employees. The Working Time Regulations put a limit on the working week, but we know that many employees are asked to opt out and many in managerial roles are not considered to be bound by these limits anyway. In any event, the issue is not necessarily the number of hours being worked, but the timing of those hours. If a manager is choosing to home-school and play golf during the daytime but then do all of their work at night, why should their direct reports have to be answering emails or sitting in on Zoom calls late into the night?
The issue is not necessarily the number of hours being worked, but the timing of those hours.
Employees might argue that not preventing managers from demanding answers or calls late at night contravenes an employer’s obligation to provide a safe place of work, enshrined in the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. But realistically, is an aspiring young employee desperate to make a good impression going to raise their head above the parapet and make that claim? The first a business will know is when they leave or fall seriously ill and then it is too late. This is certainly the view that the Irish Government took when it implemented their code, which is there to supplement existing laws on working hours and safe places of work.
It may well be that employees who have been successfully working from home for over a year may feel that a return to the office will set some boundaries to their working day, and so employers planning to downsize and reduce their office space might find that demand for those returning is higher than they think.
Is legislation the answer? Probably, but faced with a shrinking talent pool and potential employees being much more focussed on work-life balance, employers are also going to have to lead the way with their own policies to attract the staff that they want.
[ymal]
These policies must be applied consistently from the top downwards to be a success. There is no real excuse when simple technology can assist a manager eager to commit their thoughts and questions down in an email and get it out as quickly as possible. Use the delay function in Outlook (options/delay delivery) – then the creative juices can flow at 2 AM while ensuring that the email is delivered within working hours.
There also needs to be an education process for managers to understand that emails arriving late, or demands for late calls, can be seen as bullying and giving off the impression of a manager not in control of their own workload. How many times when an email popped into an inbox at midnight has your first thought been “someone is having a breakdown”? Far from impressing the recipient, generally the view is completely the opposite, but immature managers (sometimes at very senior level) lack this self-awareness and it is all about education.
Employers could go further and disable the email system between certain hours, but this is likely to increase stress levels rather than decrease them. After all, those distracted during the day when their children or pets are unwell may want to catch up on work out of hours – this is a personal choice, so long as they are not expecting input from others at that time. A simple monitoring of emails passing out of hours will soon highlight those who are not abiding by the rules. Although they may switch to WhatsApp or texts from their personal mobiles to avoid detection, having in place an anonymous reporting process will soon unearth them and the policy should spell out the sanctions.
These policies must be applied consistently from the top downwards to be a success.
There is also the tricky problem of dealing in a different time zone. Businesses will be reluctant to refuse to deal with those in the USA other than on their terms, because their competitors will. But many firms employ staff specifically to work the hours that suit their international clients and allow them time off during the day – employers need to start being creative.
Whether a Right to Disconnect clause will be included in the Employment Bill, expected this year, is yet to be seen. But clause or no clause, educating leaders on healthy working practices that create a positive workplace culture and a safe place to work should be a given. A positive culture that is inspired from the top rather than just by legal policy will nurture a more productive workforce – one that is happier, more motivated and much more energised.
Beverley Sunderland, Director
Crossland Employment Solicitors
Address: 99 Park Drive, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RY
Tel: +44 (0)123 584 1506
Email: beverley@crosslandsolicitors.com
Website: crosslandsolicitors.com
Crossland Employment Solicitors is a UK-based firm that specialises in employment law. Their team of experts advises businesses and individuals in all aspects of employment law, calling upon more than 85 years of combined experience to guide their clients.
Beverley Sunderland established Crossland in March 2008. Top-ranked in Chambers’ Guide and boasting Elite status in Legal 500, she draws on more than 30 years of experience in law and as a commercial director for a PLC. She is also an experienced advocate in both the Employment Tribunal and the Employment Appeal Tribunal, and has taken cases as far as the Court of Appeal when necessary.
Collective redress has seen an enormous spike in the last 3-4 years. Group Litigation Orders are on the rise. 2021 promises to be a vintage year in this area. The Merricks decision has unlocked a long queue of potential opt-out collective actions being pursued in the Competition Appeals Tribunal. The legal world eagerly awaits the decision of the Supreme Court in Lloyd v Google, which is as important to the back door opt-out class action regime found within CPR 19.6 as it is to data protection law. Cases cover areas as broad as Dieselgate claims, data beach claims, privacy, foreign exchange rigging, shareholder claims, truck cartels, train ticket overcharging, equal pay and worker rights. The list goes on, and is growing.
There is no doubt that the lawyers (and the litigation funders behind them) are set to profit from these claims. Headline values run into the hundreds of millions of pounds, some into the billions. The truck cartel claims and the Merricks claim against Mastercard have headline claim values that exceed £10 billion. A 30% return to a law firm on a damages-based agreement or to a litigation funder represents a healthy return, even when the time cost of money over a typical case lifecycle of 4 years plus (often longer) is taken into account.
But is this wrong? Is it only the lawyers that profit, or is this new breed of litigation also to the benefit of the (often) consumer victims and, maybe, even society as a whole?
Collective redress has seen an enormous spike in the last 3-4 years.
Three years or so ago, I was asked what I thought of the group litigation landscape in England and Wales. Was there space in the market for a new breed of firm that would recruit well from traditional defendant firms, embrace technology and really take the fight to the well-resourced corporate defendants and their squadrons of lawyers from Magic and Silver Circle firms? I thought the answer was yes. At that time there were a limited number of focussed claimant-side firms, especially those representing the interests of consumers. There was the opportunity to apply technology to drive efficiency in the generation, aggregation and ongoing management of large groups of claimants. The need to embrace the collective redress mechanisms available and the necessary evil of litigation funding was becoming better appreciated by the Courts. And, most of all, there was no shortage of corporate wrongdoing, and therefore corporates that need to be brought to account. Many of the cases cited above are on behalf of groups of corporates (small, medium and large) or investment funds of different types, but many more are on behalf of consumers. It is the latter group who have historically been under-serviced by the legal profession.
In late 2019, we therefore set about establishing Keller Lenkner UK, a sister firm of Keller Lenkner LLC, a Chicago-based claimant side firm itself set up in early 2018 by the three founders of Gerchen Keller Capital (ironically the litigation fund originally behind the Merricks case). We would apply the same ethos – great people, heavy use of technology and a razor-sharp focus on the four ‘C’s – claimant, consumer, contingent and class. And by class, we meant any situation where individual clients could have their claims brought in a way to benefit from the economies of scale of so doing, be it group litigation, multi-claimant litigation, Competition Appeals Tribunal opt-out claims, CPR 19.6 actions or even a series of individual claims following the same path. We also agreed that a key ingredient to a successful case is helping the judge to see the facts from the claimant’s perspective. He or she has to see that the claimant is on the side of right and has a genuine grievance that needs to be remedied.
[ymal]
In all of this, the technology is key. Gone are the days of pack out/pack back where adverts on the backs of buses led to call centre operatives taking claimant details before posting out hard copy sign-up documents and then chasing for responses. Instead, the modern aspiration is as digital a client journey as possible. Clients can be attracted through social media – Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, YouTube, TikTok – and then serviced by technology throughout. The new wave of group litigation firms does not measure client bases in the hundreds; it measures them in the thousands, tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands.
So, what does our current caseload look like? Over the past 18 months or so, we have built a large roster of cases and represent over a hundred thousand individual clients. We are pursuing VW, Mercedes and Vauxhall on dieselgate claims. We are pursuing Uber for failing to recognise our clients as workers. We are pursuing Tesco for alleged failures to comply with equal pay legislation. British Airways for failing to protect its customers’ data. Numerous high street banks for profiting from secret commissions on the sale of payment protection insurance. We have many more cases in the pipeline.
The common theme is that these are all claims on behalf of individuals against large well-resourced corporate defendants who have (allegedly) committed systemic wrongdoing. And, we say, the litigation that we have, with other firms, progressed has made the difference. Would car manufacturers compensate the consumers they deceived voluntarily? Would Uber have agreed to treat its drivers as workers and issue holiday pay, national minimum wage and other entitlements? Would BA have compensated the victims of the data breach? Would the banks pay back to customers tens of billions of pounds in secret commissions? The answer is clear: absolutely not.
Clients can be attracted through social media – Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, YouTube, TikTok – and then serviced by technology throughout.
So, to all those who look upon the new wave of group litigation firms with an element of distaste, I say this. Yes, of course, we are here to make a profit. But firstly, that profit will not be as extreme as it might first appear when the risks of bringing these claims and the time cost of money is taken into account. And, more importantly, by flexing our muscles, embracing technology and levelling the playing field, we are providing a route to compensation for wronged consumers that previously didn’t exist. In fact, I would go one step further. This new threat of litigation that cannot be brushed to one side has a wider impact. It gives teeth to the laws that have been created to protect society. It brings corporates to account for their misdeeds. It provides a strong incentive to comply. Firms like mine, therefore, do not just therefore provide access to justice to individual consumers. They play a wider societal role in influencing corporate behaviour.
Andrew Nugent Smith, Managing Director
Keller Lenkner UK
Address: 81 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1DD
Tel: +44 (0)208 057 7480
Email: Andrew.nugentsmith@kellerlenkner.co.uk
Website: kellerlenkner.co.uk
Keller Lenkner UK is a client-side firm whose team boasts exceptional credentials and expertise in a range of commercial, employment and consumer litigation across England and Wales.
Andrew Nugent Smith is managing director at Keller Lenkner UK and is responsible for the firm’s success and growth nationwide. He is also a seasoned commercial litigator with a deep understanding of group litigation and litigation finance.
The UK government recently announced that the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020 will come into force on 6 April 2022, introducing no-fault divorce in England and Wales. This new legislation will allow divorce to be granted without any requirement to place blame on the other party, thereby making divorce proceedings far less contentious.
England and Wales’ divorce laws are over half a century old. They require petitioners for divorce to rely on one of five grounds, namely: unreasonable behaviour, adultery, two years’ separation, five years’ separation or desertion. Needless to say, the process of the parties making allegations relating to unreasonable behaviour or adultery is often very fraught. The process therefore often leads to a further deterioration of relations, which then adversely impacts the chances of parties amicably agreeing on other matters such as a financial settlement and arrangements for their children. Once they have decided to separate, few couples want to wait until the two- or five-year time limits have elapsed to make an application as it can have an impact on financial matters and leave families in a state of uncertainty.
The introduction of no-fault divorce means that, from 6 April next year, couples will merely have to show that the relationship has irretrievably broken down. One or both parties will simply need to provide a statement to that effect, and the divorce process can then proceed. The possibility of a party contesting the divorce will be removed, which will put an end to lengthy and costly proceedings that have often only increased acrimony. Couples choosing to divorce will also have the opportunity to submit a joint application, enabling them to progress through the divorce process in a more constructive way.
England and Wales’ divorce laws are over half a century old.
The introduction of no-fault divorce has been in the offing for decades. As long ago as 1990, the Law Commission Report on the Ground for Divorce found that the UK’s current law on divorce was unjust, discriminatory, confusing, distorted the parties’ bargaining positions, increased acrimony and resulted in worse outcomes for children. The team which drafted that report was led by the redoubtable Lady Hale, who since remained a staunch advocate for the introduction of no-fault divorce in England and Wales.
In a 2018 address to family law practitioners, Lady Hale noted the dysfunction of the current laws, stating that “The contents of the petition [for divorce] can trigger or exacerbate family conflict entirely unnecessarily. Respondents are encouraged by their lawyers to ‘suck it up’ even though the allegations are unfair. There is no evidence at all that having to give a reason for the breakdown makes people think twice. The decision to divorce is not taken lightly, but this is not because of need to prove one of the five facts.”
Political opposition to the introduction of no-fault divorce was very limited as it passed through Parliament last year, with MPs voting in favour of the bill’s second reading by 231 to 16. Only a few politicians spoke against the legislation, such as Conservative peer Lord Farmer, who argued that “Making marriage easier to exit and sanitising divorce may make it less painful to the adults involved, but it is far more likely to weaken the institution of marriage than strengthen it.”
As long ago as 1990, the Law Commission Report on the Ground for Divorce found that the UK’s current law on divorce was unjust.
Lord Farmer also predicted that “It will render marriage more voluntaristic and like cohabitation with its assumption that a couple may only stay together whilst it works for both of them. Marriage on the other hand is a solemn vow, an explicit statement of commitment, ‘until death’. Saying it’s no-one’s fault when one or both parties fail to live up to the promises made empties those promises of all meaning.”
It remains to be seen whether the introduction of no-fault divorce will have any impact upon the overall divorce rates. It is true that some academic research has suggested that the introduction of no-fault divorce in other European states may have contributed to an increase in the overall divorce rates. However, Scotland introduced no-fault divorce in 2006, and it did not cause an increase in divorce rates there but appears to have substantially reduced the number of divorces alleging fault.
Office of National Statistics figures from 2016 found that in Scotland just 6% of divorces relied on the fault-based grounds, whereas in England and Wales the proportion was 56%. These figures suggest that the introduction of no-fault divorce can help to deconflict the process, resulting in substantially less conflict and litigation overall. This can only be to the benefit of the adults and any children affected by the divorce.
[ymal]
Upon the passing of the legislation last year, Law Society president Simon Davis called the introduction of no-fault divorce “a landmark moment”, predicting that it will “change for the better the way couples separate.” Mr Davis went on to state that “For separating parents, it can be much harder to focus on the needs of their children when they have to prove a fault-based fact or remain married to their former partner for years. Introducing ‘no fault’ divorce will cut unnecessary conflict from the separation process – allowing couples to move on as amicably as possible and focus on what really matters.”
As well as changing the legal grounds for divorce, the new legislation will also usher in an overhaul of the divorce process in England and Wales. The new procedure dispenses with archaic language such as Decree Nisi and Decree Absolute, replacing these Latin terms with the phrases Conditional Order and Final Order. The changes also apply to the dissolution of civil partnerships.
However, while the divorce process is being simplified, the legislation does recognise that divorce is not a step to be taken lightly and it does not allow divorces to be concluded with unseemly haste. The legislation requires that a 20-week period of reflection is observed from when the divorce application is initially made before a Conditional Order can be made. This waiting period is designed to give parties the time to decide whether they do in fact want to proceed with the divorce. It also provides the parties with ample time to take legal advice on the best way to move forward for their families. The 6-week period between the Conditional Order and the Final Order will remain as it currently is.
As well as changing the legal grounds for divorce, the new legislation will also usher in an overhaul of the divorce process in England and Wales.
Introducing a 20-week waiting period at an early stage in proceedings is wise, as it gives the parties time to take stock, allowing them the ability to take a more holistic perspective on their situation and how best to progress matters. In my experience, both parties to divorce proceedings fare much better if they begin the process constructively, with the shared aim of reaching a mutually suitable arrangement with minimum conflict. By imposing a waiting period before the process begins in earnest, couples will have time to explore the various dispute resolution options that are available to them, such as mediation, hybrid mediation, collaborative law, arbitration and adjudication. These processes can help divorcing couples to agree the best way forward, or at least to minimise any areas of disagreement, thereby making the process far less contentious and emotionally taxing and saving costs.
The Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020 replaces long-outmoded legislation which too often exacerbated the already difficult situation of relationship breakdown. By eliminating the concept of blame from divorce proceedings, the new process provides a framework which should help to radically reduce unnecessary conflict and so help couples work together more positively towards separation.
Naomi Lelliott, Lawyer
Excello Law
Address: 110 Bishopsgate, London, EC2N 4AY
Tel: +44 (0)845 257 9449
Email: nlelliott@excellolaw.co.uk
Website: excellolaw.co.uk
Excello Law is a new-model law firm that holds 9 offices in the UK, with more than 120 lawyers operating nationally. Its staff support clients across the full range of business issues and legal services.
Naomi Lelliott is a specialist family lawyer, hybrid mediator and collaborative lawyer at Excello Law. She has particular expertise in guiding families constructively through the processes of divorce, separation or dissolution of civil partnerships.
