Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
Electrical and mechanical failures require a good deal of specialist knowledge to fully understand. What skills and experience did you require to specialise as an expert witness in this area?
I am an electrical engineer whose bullseye competence is based in a lifetime of working in potentially explosive atmospheres with experience of equipment ranging from low voltage and current to 138 kV. My career started as an apprentice electrician in the coal mining industry, progressing through being an engineering manager, companywide automation engineer, and research engineer working on European Union projects to being a Health and Safety Executive (HSE) Inspector. For the last eight years I have worked in the private sector as an engineering consultant and expert witness.SEHealth and Safety I now work for Envista Forensics, based in the London office, which covers the Europe/Middle East and Africa (EMEA) region.
Not only do I have many years of industry experience, but I have also been fortunate to have worked for companies who have given me the time, support and sponsorship to gain a BSc, an MBA, an Engineering Doctorate and a deep knowledge and understanding of a plethora of standards and legislative requirements relating to engineering.
I am repeatedly instructed on insurance losses ranging from £20,000 to £100 million both in the UK and overseas and on complex health and safety prosecutions, and my instructions often are at the direct request of Insurers and barristers.
As an expert witness, my fundamental role is to explain complex engineering issues in a manner and language that the Court can easily understand. In my experience, being able to give practical examples of different, but similar, equipment and systems that the Court can more readily relate to can often work best. Prior to me working for the HSE I was a part time Further Education teacher which I did for many years. That experience of teaching adults, some of whom were only students because their employer forced them to attend, greatly assists me in producing my reports for the Court and also in giving oral evidence.
[ymal]
Even though I am obviously biased, and I hope that I do not offend my legal colleagues by saying so, in my opinion an engineer is always best placed to assist the Court on engineering issues.
I have acted as an expert witness:
Engineering issues are often highly complex and sometimes difficult for a lawyer to explain in court. What assistance do you provide?
In criminal trials, I am not only able to assist the Court to explain the complex engineering aspects but also the associated investigation process that led up to the decision to prosecute.
Even though as an expert witness my overriding duty is to the Court to be honest and impartial, I also have a commercial duty to my client who is instructing me. Therefore, it is paramount that I work within the agreed budget and timescales.
Of course, prior to producing a report, I need to carry out a robust investigation and gather as much evidence as I can. One of the best lessons that I have ever been given on taking evidence is to think that you will never visit the scene ever again. That way, you take the time that is necessary, not always the same as the time that you are originally allotted, and take whatever evidence is required. Photographic and video evidence is invaluable as is detailed note taking.
One of the best lessons that I have ever been given on taking evidence is to think that you will never visit the scene ever again.
Sometimes other parties in a case instruct their own experts and I am required to conduct joint inspections. It is here where good interpersonal skills are required so that everyone has fair and equal opportunity to carry out a robust inspection.
What analysis do you need to undertake to conduct an effective investigation?
I reach my conclusions by following the evidence and approach each case with no preconceived thoughts on what the root cause may be or where the case may lead. I examine all credible scenarios, create hypothesises and then either prove or disprove each one. However, I sometimes have to accept that I cannot categorically find the root cause of an event. Sometimes the evidence has been disturbed or even disposed of before I arrive on scene, and sometimes witness evidence is not as reliable as I would like for various reasons. I am aware of one investigation carried out by a colleague where it was eventually proved that a corpse had been moved to give the impression of another chain of events. With this in mind, I tend to be sceptical and only believe what I can prove.
What are common reasons for electrical and mechanical failures in the cases you pursue?
I am often asked about the common reasons for electrical and mechanical failures in the cases that I investigate. Invariably I find that poor design, poor installation and commissioning and poor maintenance (probably in equal measure) are the reasons. Sadly, another increasingly common factor is how the competence of the technicians and engineers involved in these processes has diminished with younger people choosing to follow other careers than engineering. Because of this, I am a STEM ambassador in my spare time and try to encourage as many young people as possible to become engineers and scientists.
What developments have taken place in the past year to impact how cases in your area of expertise are handled?
In the past 15 months during the COVID-19 pandemic, social distancing measures have meant that joint inspections are carried out in a different manner, with some taking place by remote means. Also, of course, the advent of Nightingale Courts and remote attendance has been something that a lot of people, myself included, have had to adjust to.
The changes made due to the pandemic are hopefully short-term, but I feel it is vital for an expert witness to keep abreast of emerging technologies and practices. I am fortunate that the professional bodies that I am a member of encourage continuous professional development (CPD), and I submit my CPD plan and record annually to assist me maintaining my Chartered Engineer, Chartered Scientist and Chartered Environmentalist registrations.
Dr John Ford (BSc, MBA, EngD, DMS, PGCE, CEng, CSci, CEnv, FIMMM, MIET, MCMI), Technical Lead Mechanical/Electrical UK
Envista Forensics
Address: 364, Blvd du 30 juin, Im. Kiyo ya Sita, 6th floor, Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo
Tel: (+44) 203 696 7996 / (+44) 778 740 8240
Email: john.ford@envistaforensics.com
Website: envistaforensics.com
Envista Forensics is a global, multi-disciplinary and highly skilled forensic engineering and expert services firm. We have 400 full time professionals (as well as over 1200 Associates) located in 35 offices on 4 continents that comprise the Envista team and provide a wide array of services including various disciplines of Forensic Engineering, Fire and Explosion Investigations, Building and Equipment Consulting, Accident Reconstruction and Digital and Cyber Forensics as well as Equipment Restoration Services globally known as AREPA. Our customers are primarily insurance companies, loss adjusters and lawyers.
Dr John Ford is Technical Lead for Mechanical and Electrical Investigations at Envista. He has accrued a library of professional accreditations alongside a wealth of practitioner and regulatory experience, specializing in commercial and industrial settings involving electrical engineering and workplace accident investigation.
Once again, an active shooter destroyed the lives of many family members and took his own life.
Sam Cassidy was a 57-year-old employee of the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) in San Jose, California, with 20 years of experience under his belt. While fellow VTA employees were starting up the trains for the workday early in the morning on 26 May, Cassidy appeared on the scene toting three handguns with 32 full magazines. By the time law enforcement arrived on the scene, Cassidy had discharged 39 rounds, killing eight coworkers (a ninth died just hours later) and himself and injuring others.
These are the sad facts reported by the news media on that fateful Wednesday. But what makes the situation worse is that it did not have to happen. Cassidy left many red flags. But those close to him failed to heed them. For instance, Cassidy had expressed dissatisfaction with his job at the VTA and that he wanted to kill some of his coworkers and bosses, but his threats went unheeded. As the VTA active shooting revealed, failure to act on red flags shown by a disgruntled employee can be fatal.
By having a Threat Assessment Team (TAT), the VTA could have prevented the active shooting that occurred on its rail yard. The purpose of a TAT is to prevent targeted violence. The TAT is comprised of employees and supervisors and receives reports from staff members and other sources about threatening or violent behaviour by someone at a worksite. The TAT assesses the facts and evidence of reported behaviours. It then responds by providing support and resources to reduce the risk of future targeted violence.
The TAT meets regularly to share information and gather facts. During these meetings, members of the TAT discuss the latest news, laws, and procedures regarding workplace violence to enable their employer to avoid situations like the VTA active shooting. The duties of the TAT are:
[ymal]
All TAT members play distinct roles in helping an employer to avoid workplace violence. TAT members include legal professionals, HR personnel, EAP counselors, facility security, local law enforcement, and first-line supervisors.
Legal professionals help the employer avoid lawsuits by involved parties by providing legal counsel of the rights and responsibilities of the employee and employer. Legal professionals can advise an employer of what information it has legal access to and what its responsibilities are in protecting its employees and organisation.
HR personnel can keep an employer abreast of an employee’s work history, including counselling, discipline, and career progression. HR personnel can also offer advice to an employer about suitable training for employees that will help foster a safe work environment.
EAP counsellors work directly with employees with work-related issues, so they can provide invaluable information to employers on an employee’s mental health. EAP counsellors are specially trained on employee safety, performance management, workplace trauma, coaching, and crisis intervention. Therefore, EAP counselors are the subject-matter experts regarding employees who have or are receiving counselling for work-related issues, or those who should be referred to receive it. As such, EAP counsellors can serve a vital role as liaisons between employers and disgruntled employees with the potential to cause workplace violence.
Legal professionals can advise an employer of what information it has legal access to and what its responsibilities are in protecting its employees and organisation.
Facility security is an integral part of a safe work environment. Thus, all security personnel should be relied on to respond to workplace violence in the most efficient and safe manner. To this end, the facility security supervisor must be up to date on the latest training on workplace violence and active shooter response. The facility security supervisor is also responsible for conducting realistic training on workplace violence response such as access control, evacuations, and applying first aid. In conjunction with facility security, an employer should implement an organisational code system that would be employed in the case of a hostile act at the workplace.
In the case of a hostile event at the workplace, local law enforcement should be called to help neutralise and secure the situation. The facility security supervisor should be in close contact with local law enforcement and incorporate its advice and guidance regarding responding to workplace violence in the organisation’s standard operating procedures.
The first-line supervisor of a potentially violent employee should be called on by the employer to gather timely information. Since the first-line supervisor knows the potentially violent employee’s personality and behaviours, the first-line supervisor is probably most suited to assess a potentially violent situation involving the individual on the job.
Months, and even years, after a violent workplace incident such as an active shooting, the employer is left to pick up the pieces and do damage control. For instance, even though most people knew little to nothing about the Valley Transportation Authority before the active shooting that occurred at its facility, its name, unfortunately, will probably be remembered only as the place where a disgruntled employee fatally flew off the handle. Of course, there are legal issues involving the incident that will appear to have no end in sight for the employer. Local and federal authorities and litigating opposing counsels will be asking the employer at least two obvious questions:
What did you do once your Threat Assessment Team informed you of the perpetrator’s potential violent behavior? How could your organisation have avoided this senseless act of violence? What actions must everyone involved take?
Months, and even years, after a violent workplace incident such as an active shooting, the employer is left to pick up the pieces and do damage control.
California Active Shooter Training Response is here to provide training to assist you with your fiduciary duties of protecting your staff. For more information, contact California Active Shooter Training Response at their website.
Lindon Lilly, President
California Active Shooter Academy LLC
Tel: (833) 922 6742
Email: llilly@californiaactiveshootertraining.com
Website: www.californiaactiveshootertraining.com
California Active Shooter Response Training is here to provide training to assist you with your fiduciary duties of protecting your staff. With decades of experience handling threat assessments and security consultations, their team identifies, locates and interviews witnesses for reporting purposes, and will surveil subjects in support of civil litigation. With their years of experience, they aim to bring the same discipline and knowledge of a large firm but with the compassion and care of a boutique agency.
Lindon Lilly has 30 years of experience in the legal support and security services industries, including years of protecting high-profile individuals, in addition to 20 years of experience in law enforcement. Lilly is a licensed private investigator who has designed and implemented threat assessment methodologies and standard operating procedures. He is also a physical security specialist specialising in perimeter security, internal security and surveillance monitoring. Lilly is a certified Active Shooter Instructor able to instruct on active shooter pre-attack behaviours, US Secret Service threat assessment training, and FBI debriefing training on active shooters and bombing investigations.
The past year has been full of trials and tribulations for work practices across every industry in the UK. The legal profession is no exception. When COVID-19 struck, law firms were forced to close their offices and switch to a remote working model. As a result, both in-house legal teams and external law firms needed to explore virtual ways of delivering their services.
Although remote work was not a totally new phenomenon, the urgency with which the transition took hold, alongside the fact that many legal businesses still relied upon traditional working practices and legacy technologies, left many individuals in the profession feeling underprepared and unable to work effectively.
To make matters worse, against this backdrop of chaos, the UK’s exit from the European Union still needed to go ahead. The ratification of Brexit has had a significant impact on workload for all legal professionals, regardless of specialism or job role. As law firms and corporate law departments get to grips with the myriad of new regulations, and subsequent client requests and activities, the switch to remote working has presented yet another unwelcome hurdle.
With legal workloads at an all-time-high it has never been more important for law firms to ensure that their employees are equipped with the tools to remain productive and collaborative, regardless of where they are working. Whilst set to be challenging, this period of transition could also be one of opportunity for legal professionals, enabling them to maximise on new business opportunities and become an essential asset to their clients.
As the UK finds its feet as a nation officially outside the European Union, professionals in the legal sector have found themselves suddenly juggling a spike in demand for their services. While growth is a priority for all businesses, it must be manageable in order to reap the rewards. Unfortunately, for many legal professionals operating in today’s climate of crisis, this is not the case.
[ymal]
In fact, recent research revealed that despite 58% of in-house legal teams seeing their workload increase as a result of the pandemic, only 6% saw their budget rise to support the extra activity. It is no surprise that 29% of those surveyed said they are having to do more with less. This can have a negative impact across the whole sector and those working within it. For example, research from legal software specialist Access Legal discovered that time constraints were the top challenge for all law firms, regardless of size, with 48% struggling to set time aside for career development processes such as essential learning and training.
To add to this, maintaining a healthy work-life balance while tackling high volumes of work in the midst of a pandemic is not easy, especially within the legal sector. In fact, according to recent reports, 70% of lawyers believe they work in the most stressful profession, with 81% of respondents naming workload as the leading cause.
Whilst challenges related to remote work rage on, in the lead-up to Brexit, many firms - particularly those that carry out cross-border work - have faced pressure to ensure that they themselves are compliant. From understanding where data is stored and how it is transferred to reviewing and updating privacy notices, consents and relevant policies and procedures, firms will have needed to take necessary steps to ensure they comply with both the EU GDPR and the UK Data Protection legislation. Moving forward, clients, suppliers and other third parties will need to be informed around the transfer of data, and, more importantly, staff will need to undergo relevant training.
Needless to say, legal professionals are currently faced with a never-ending to-do list, from client requests to internal processes. In order to support their staff and enable them to transform this pressure into opportunity, legal businesses need to streamline operations.
Moving forward, clients, suppliers and other third parties will need to be informed around the transfer of data, and, more importantly, staff will need to undergo relevant training.
Modern technologies - such as legal speech recognition software – could provide an answer. These solutions empower barristers, solicitors, paralegals, clerks, and other legal professionals to complete documentation simply by using their voice. They can help legal teams to navigate the challenges of Brexit whilst still delivering in terms of client needs and maintaining productivity levels, regardless of where employees are based.
Recent research by Nuance revealed that legal professionals spend an average of three hours a day typing out case notes, briefs, contracts, and correspondence. By leveraging speech technologies, most of that time could be diverted towards other, more valuable activities - such as billable work and client service. These technologies can convert spoken words into editable text up to three times faster than they could be typed, resulting in a significant reduction when it comes to document turnaround time. They are able to recognise specialised legal vocabulary and acronyms and even enable automatic formatting of legal citations. The best on the market are powered by deep learning technology which achieves the highest recognition, even for users with accents or those working in open office environments.
Cloud-based technology ensures that legal professionals have access to all these features, regardless of where they are based. This is something that proved particularly useful over the last year. In fact, the research found that 80% of legal practitioners who were already implementing speech-to-text solutions felt properly equipped to work from home when the pandemic struck, as opposed to just 53% of those not implementing the technologies.
One example of a legal professional already benefitting from this technology is Jonathan Silverman, founder of Silverman Advisory LLP. He deployed speech recognition in his firm for the first time in 1995 and has been leveraging the technology ever since. In addition to speedy and accurate document creation, Jonathan’s firm is able to meet client needs swiftly, and personally benefit from greater job satisfaction through increased control over document production.
For legal professionals – whether in-house or external - discovering the benefits of digital transformation in this new post-Brexit, remote world, legal speech recognition technology could be the secret for meeting client needs, growing practices, taking on new clients and increasing overall profitability.
Ed McGuiggan, Vice President of Global eCommerce
Nuance Communications UK Limited
Address: 33 Soho Square, London W1D 3QU, United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0) 1628 491600
In Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority v Azima [2021] EWCA Civ 349 (‘RAKIA’) the civil division of the Court of Appeal confirmed the long-standing rule that relevance of evidence is key to its admissibility, not whether it was obtained lawfully. As a result, evidence of fraud on the part of Mr Azima, which was said to have been obtained by unlawful ‘hacking’ of his computer, could nonetheless be deployed. The court took the view that refusing to admit the evidence or striking out the claim as an abuse of process would have left Mr Azima with the benefit of his fraudulent conduct.
In weighing up the public policy considerations of needing to be seen to provide justice whilst at the same time ensuring that members of the public abide by the law, the court has continued to favour the former, well established by the time of the seminal judgment in Jones v University of Warwick [2003] EWCA Civ 151. But what bearing does this decision have on the admissibility of illegally obtained evidence in criminal proceedings, especially if sought to be deployed by a defendant? And does this case in any way erode the well-established rule that illegally obtained evidence obtained through torture will not, under any circumstances, be admitted in evidence?
In principle, in criminal proceedings the same rule applies: provided that admitting evidence will not have an adverse effect on the fairness of proceedings, and it is relevant to matters in issue, it will be admissible. Indeed, Kurama v R [1995] AC 197, which is the leading authority from (relatively) modern times, was a criminal prosecution from Kenya where the search leading to the evidence was plainly unlawful. As the court reiterated there, quoting from an 1861 judgment (in another criminal case): “It matters not how you get it; if you steal it even, it would be admissible”.
Nonetheless it is hard to imagine that deliberate breaches of the criminal law by the authorities would not lead to exclusion of such evidence, given the fairness requirement embodied in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and its extensive subsequent case law or, in the world of surveillance, by the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (‘IPA’ - for technical surveillance) and the Police Act 1997 and Part II of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (for physical surveillance and associated actions), which provide state actors with comprehensive processes and codes to ensure they act compatibly with the criminal law and the Human Rights Act 1998. In short, there can be little excuse for a state actor not acting lawfully.
“It matters not how you get it; if you steal it even, it would be admissible”.
These issues were well illustrated in the recent Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) judgment in A,B,D,C v R [2021] EWCA Crim 128 concerning the use of evidence thought by suspects to be protected by the ‘EncroChat’ encryption system, which was hailed as one of the greatest evidential breakthroughs against serious and organised crime. The underlying point was the need to assert that not only was the material outside the prohibition on the use of intercepted material but that, if the prohibition did not apply, the actions were taken with lawful authority where the acquiring agency (here the NCA) had a relevant Targeted Equipment Interference Warrant under the IPA. The need for compliance with the IPA was a given throughout the proceedings, on what was effectively a premise that compliance guaranteed admissibility (if this was not interception, which the Court of Appeal concluded it was not). Significantly, subject to other arguments about admissibility and abuse of process - which the Court of Appeal strongly hinted would not carry any weight but seem to the authors to present substantive challenges (as is the case in proving all hacking activity) – such evidence can be relied upon by the prosecution.
Whilst the historical and ethical bases for restraining state power are obvious, there is an argument that the same bases do not readily apply to an individual. Of course, it is not for the accused to present anything by way of evidence in their defence; instead that task lies squarely with the prosecuting authority. But to what extent, for example, is a defendant, wishing to use illegally obtained evidence in support of their defence, at liberty to use that material?
Self-apparently a defendant exposes themselves to the risk of further investigation and prosecution should they engage in criminal activity such as hacking (or theft) even if the purpose was to secure evidence to support innocence. But to that extent the individual is in no different position to the civil litigant in terms of the consequences of their actions, although with the obvious practical difference that law enforcement bodies will already be party to the case and the defendant’s actions (or the actions of those associated with them) will be much more readily apparent to those who might be minded to initiate a criminal inquiry. It seems clear that the fundamental test of ‘relevance not lawfulness‘ should not change simply because of the identity and position of the party seeking to adduce the evidence.
[ymal]
Although likely to be rare, it is important to remember that a special exception to the general rule of courts admitting relevant evidence, no matter its origin, has been carved out by the House of Lords (A v Secretary of State for the Home Department (No 2) [2005] UKHL 71). Where the evidence may have been obtained by torture (the legal test being that it must be proven on the balance of probabilities that torture took place) that evidence will be inadmissible. This rule recognises the moral and public policy imperatives.
That rule was affirmed by the Supreme Court in 2020 in another civil case, Shagang Shipping Company Ltd v HNA Group Company Ltd [2020] UKSC 34 (‘SHAGANG’). Concentrating on the issue of proof, the Supreme Court held that whilst evidence shown on the balance of probabilities to have been obtained by torture is inadmissible, there is no rule that, if it is not proven to the civil standard, the fact that torture may have taken place must be ignored when deciding the facts in issue. The court confirmed that if there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that a statement was obtained by torture, that is a matter which a judge can and should take into account.
Such a pragmatic approach reflects the fact that proving torture occurred is often inherently difficult and therefore, as a matter of public policy, it is only right that courts in respect of all judicial proceedings be able to take into account the possibility that torture may have rendered the evidence unreliable. The evidence that torture was used will therefore fall to be considered by the judge along with all other relevant matters. This significant clarification also recognises the fact that its use will always be subject to the party who wishes to benefit from its use seeking to show that it cannot be proven, on the balance of probabilities, that it was in fact the product of torture. And this too could arise in the criminal context: not least given it is a crime of universal jurisdiction one can see how evidence arising from torture could feature in criminal proceedings in England alleging crimes relating to torture.
RAKIA and SHAGANG largely confirm what we already knew about admissibility of evidence that is obtained by unlawful means. Torture remains a moral line which the courts will not countenance being crossed. For the rest, the Courts seem open to admitting unlawfully obtained evidence in civil proceedings (or arguably from the defendant in criminal or regulatory proceedings) where the issue of whether a crime has been committed in gathering the evidence is left for other organs of the state to investigate. Public authorities are – and should be – held to higher standards, adopting the existing processes which remove any question that the evidence has been unlawfully gathered.
Michael Drury, Partner
Caroline Mair, Senior Associate
Andrew Watson, Legal Assistant
BCL Solicitors LLP
Address: 51 Lincoln's Inn Fields, London WC2A 3LZ
Tel: +44 020 7430 2277
Philip Turvey, executive director at Anglia Research, explores how the COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the digitalisation of legal practices.
While there has been a very rapid uptake in digital solutions in the legal world within the last five years, with lots of disruptor start-ups shaking up their field, some legal practices, such as probate genealogy, still follow quite a technical, non-digital process. A lot of this is due to the type of work carried out by probate genealogists.
Probate genealogy – more commonly known as heir hunting – is the practice of investigating family trees, finding heirs and proving their right to an inheritance if someone has not only died intestate, which accounts for roughly 1 in 3 deaths in the UK at the moment, but also where they have no known next-of-kin.
As a result, the genealogical investigation can often involve sifting through and checking masses of historical records, including birth, death, and marriage certificates, drawing up the deceased’s family tree and identifying the next-of-kin. However, the pandemic changed all of this, with the lockdowns forcing the industry to adapt far quicker than it ever could imagine.
Sectors across the economy faced a similar challenge. Take estate agencies, for example, firms across the country, such as Maskells and Strutt & Parker, had to pivot during the first lockdown to offer virtual property tours to prospective buyers who couldn’t physically attend viewings.
Similar adaptability was evident in criminal and civil courts across the UK. Before the pandemic, the UK court system used the Justice Video Service in criminal courts and could offer audio hearings in civil courts. However, after the first lockdown started on 23rd March 2020, the UK greatly expanded this existing technology and incorporated teleconferencing services, such as BTMeetMe, and videoconferencing services, such as Skype for Business, into their capabilities. The result was a court system that didn’t completely collapse under the pressures of COVID-19. And it is this adaptability that is most similar to the changes we saw in the probate genealogy sector.
Like the court system, we have used videoconferencing and other digital services to correspond and engage with our clients. These changes enabled us to avoid any potential backlog of cases caused by the pandemic. Our FOI report, which surveyed all local authorities in England and Wales, found the number of will-less deaths, where councils became responsible for arranging a public health funeral as a result of there being no relatives,rose by 60% between March and May last year. Furthermore, 12% of councils reported handling such matters for the first time. Similarly, our Unclaimed Estates Index found there were 216 and 176 unclaimed estates in Birmingham and Camden, respectively, in December 2020.
However, partly as a result of the digital practices put in place during the pandemic, the number of unclaimed estates has greatly reduced. Our most recent Unclaimed Estates Index in June this year found that the number of unclaimed estates in Birmingham and Camden had dropped to 187 and 131.
The pandemic has irreversibly changed all our lives, and as we begin the long road to normality, businesses face the question of what COVID-19 necessitated changes do we keep or lose. For probate genealogy, the pandemic has shown that some of our processes can be streamlined, simplified, and conducted online.
Streamlining practices is something happening across the legal sector at the moment, with the Ministry of Justice recently turning to the National Archives to set up a new comprehensive and free online repository of court judgements from England and Wales. However, this doesn’t mean that all practices need to change. For Anglia Research, studying physical records is an area of the sector we are experts in, and it would be nullified if we shifted to a total digital-first approach.
It is in this middle ground that the future of the probate genealogy sector lies. We must blend the new practices put in place by the COVID-19 pandemic with the old ways of studying physical records. Although we may not have expected it, the partial shift to digital will help the sector assist lawyers, trustees and local authorities and help us to crack our genealogical investigations.
The use of technology to handle data has significantly increased efficiency in the legal sector over the past decade or so. When it comes to due diligence and security, software does not tire as humans do and it can increase accuracy and efficiency when completing tasks.
In the post-pandemic world, many companies generally will be switching to a hybrid model of working. This means that they will become more reliant on secure programmes to protect data while ensuring employees can share and access it easily.
The needs of companies have changed drastically in the past year, and it is imperative they should find the right programmes for themselves going forwards. Legal professionals can play a pivotal role in advising on minimum security needs and pointing clients towards the right programmes to support their needs.
A key issue is that with more data being stored in a digital world, more opportunities for cyberattacks are created. Cyberattacks can involve hacked devices, network breaches or stolen data, all of which can seriously damage commercial interests and be financially devastating.
The consequences of cyberattacks go far wider than internal disruption. They include reputational damage, fines from regulators, loss of revenue, loss of customers, the need to pay out compensation to customers and the cost of resources needed to combat cyberattacks. Real estate is a sector that is particularly attractive to hackers because of the frequent, high-value transactions between multiple parties taking place digitally.
Despite this, there is a common perception from real estate professionals across Europe that the industry is unprepared to deal with cyberattacks, with many expecting the number of attacks on businesses to increase in the coming years.
There is a common perception from real estate professionals across Europe that the industry is unprepared to deal with cyberattacks.
Controlling external parties’ access to information is of particular concern because it is difficult to monitor and limit. Protecting information flows between devices, protecting against ransomware and controlling employees’ access to information are other vulnerable areas for companies operating in real estate asset management. As the industry looks to get this issue under control and implement changes to enhance protections, legal professionals will be key to supporting companies and ensuring the correct processes are applied.
Key steps to keep in mind when advising clients on developing a strategy to address potential cyberattacks include:
Countering the threat
Early warning systems – Identifying a cyberattack is often much harder than it might seem. Adequate monitoring is essential to highlight breaches as soon as possible. This monitoring system must pinpoint when attacks have taken place, what kind of attacks they are and the impacts they could have.
Containing the attack – Responsibility for this must rest with either the IT department or be tasked to an external cybersecurity specialist.
Effective recovery strategy
Transparency – Stakeholders are unforgiving of product and service providers who breach trust by failing to make them aware of important developments at the earliest opportunity.
Reporting incidents – Issues should be reported in a timely manner to relevant authorities and customers. This is even more imperative under the GDPR reporting rules.
Response plan – This must include a PR and marketing strategy to mitigate negative publicity as well as informing key stakeholders on the type of attack involved.
[ymal]
Key points of consideration for companies
Governance – A core group should be made responsible for monitoring, developing and implementing cybersecurity programs and policies.
Strategy management – Response plans must be updated regularly to ensure they are fit for purpose.
Training – Team members beyond just the IT department must be kept informed of the risks faced by the company and its cybersecurity policies.
While prevention is key, it is just as important to have an effective recovery strategy in place. If the right procedures are in place, cyberattacks can be contained and recovery can begin immediately.
Surviving in a digital world
The potential for cyberattacks is growing as digitisation becomes an ever-increasing part of commercial life. Preventing such attacks by having the right protection in place will always be less costly than recovering from a breach.
This requires companies to secure and manage data in the right way. While real estate companies need to fully consider all their options, cloud-based data storage in the form of virtual data rooms (VDRs) offer a robust solution for many of them.
Drooms’ VDR products provide the security protocols to meet all the best practice principles outlined above. They tick all the boxes in terms of being fully GDPR-compliant and having encryption, multi-factor authentication and back-up solutions in place.
These are all the factors that real estate companies must ensure they have covered in today’s world. Protecting against cyberattacks is not a luxury; it is essential for their survival.
Rosanna Woods, Managing Director UK
Drooms GmbH
Address: 11-12 Tokenhouse Yard, London, EC2R 7AS
Tel: (+44) 207 118 1100
Email: office-uk@drooms.com
Website: www.drooms.com
With the end of COVID-19 restrictions in sight, many businesses have focused on making their workplace compliant with safety guidelines. However, because of this focus on pandemic measures, another new government rule has likely slipped under the radar for many people — a new rule that will massively impact how businesses interact with contractors.
This new rule concerns the tax legislation IR35, which finally came into force in April this year. IR35 is designed to prevent “disguised” employment, where businesses engage workers on a self-employment basis, generally in order to pay less tax or circumvent employee protections. Previously, it was the contractor’s responsibility to assess whether IR35 applied to their situation, but since April it is now the responsibility of private companies to identify the contractor’s IR35 status and whether or not they should be paying the same income taxes and national insurance contributions (NIC) as a regular employee. This will increase business costs as companies must spend time and money on reviewing and formalising work relationships with contractors.
If a contractor falls within the scope of IR35 — for instance, because the business employs them on an ongoing basis rather than for a project or offers them benefits such as paid leave — the company must reclassify them as an employee, deduct income tax and employee NIC from payments to the contractor’s limited company, and pay employer NIC to HMRC.
Furthermore, when the contractor is deemed an employee, they are not automatically entitled to employment rights or social security. This means that the worker gets all the disadvantages of being an employee without the advantages.
Why companies hire contractors
The government had good intentions when drafting IR35: it wanted to address a perceived unfairness in the labour market, protect workers from exploitation and increase tax revenues. However, it has seemingly failed to understand the mechanics behind why companies employ contractors.
[ymal]
Companies use contractors for various reasons, but most often it is to acquire help and expertise needed for a specific time-limited project at a lower cost compared to hiring a full-time employee. The business simply pays a fee to the contractor’s limited company and does not need to worry about paying employment taxes or benefits.
For the contractor, earning income via a limited company is tax-advantageous: they can pay themselves with dividends from their company, which are not subject to NIC, and their company only pays the corporation tax rate on profits, which may be lower than income tax rates. Contractors often prefer the freedom and control that comes from being self-employed.
Using contractors is fine when people are hired on a project-by-project basis. However, IR35 was partly drafted in response to the rise of the gig economy, which allows employers to hire workers on very flexible terms and an on-going basis, without the risks and costs of permanent employees.
That is a prime example of corporations using contractors for the wrong purpose: it is cheap labour, there are complaints about work pressures, and workers may end up in unhealthy situations. IR35 is a new attempt to address this old problem.
International implications
Other countries in Europe have tried similar legislation to address the issue of contractors, but it usually has not worked out as planned. For example, the Netherlands altered its rules regarding the misclassification of contractors in 2018 but ended up putting an enforcement moratorium in place because it created too much legal uncertainty for companies and contractors. The law was replaced last year. IR35 carries the same issue: as the classification of in- or out-of-scope is checked afterwards, parties are exposed to the risk of misclassification.
IR35 could also make the UK unattractive for certain jobs and limit access to talent. For instance, if a country struggles to hire engineers, companies abroad will make it possible to contract there. This could cause an exodus of talent moving to other countries.
IR35 may also negatively impact international business because it also applies to foreign companies trying to hire local contractors. Foreign companies are unable to employ contractors as employees because of their lack of presence in the UK. IR35 creates the risk that any contractor they hire may be deemed an employee, which may disincentivise foreign businesses from working with UK contractors.
What business should do next
It is a priority for businesses of all sizes to assess their contractor relationships to determine which are working on a project basis – and so may remain working as contractors – and which could be deemed as employees.
Most smaller businesses will be unaffected by IR35, as the rules state that the contractor will remain responsible for assessing whether IR35 applies if their client is a small company. The Companies Act 2006 defines a small business as one that meets at least two of the following requirements: turnover of £10.2 million or less; a balance sheet total of £5.1 million or less; and/or no more than 50 employees.
If a business is affected, they have a few options. If they do not wish to hire an employee when extra support is needed only with a specific project, they could hire contractors employed via an umbrella company, rather than ones who operate their own limited company. We are likely to see a rise of umbrella companies, which employ people who are then hired out to work with businesses on a temporary basis. However, it may mean that contractors continue working for an employer without enjoying the benefits of being a full-time employee.
We are likely to see a rise of umbrella companies, which employ people who are then hired out to work with businesses on a temporary basis.
On the lower end of the job range, where IR35 is supposed to have a positive impact, you may expect companies to circumvent the rules via umbrella companies or other structures and keep underpaying their cheap labour workforce.
Another option for UK and foreign businesses is to consider hiring their contractors as employees via Employer of Record (EOR) services, which means a third party takes care of payroll, benefits, taxes and compliance. This circumvents the IR35 issue altogether.
Focus on talent, not employment terms
Prior to IR35, using contractors was an easy way to hire talent for a specific project, but now employers must make more effort to get help with short-term project-based work.
Fundamentally, businesses hire contractors instead of full-time employees because it can be cheaper. If governments do not understand the reason behind this decision-making process, then they are just trying to address a symptom, not fighting the cause. This never works.
IR35 places the burden on companies to assess the status of their contractors; a better solution would be to bring the government check to the front of the process. This could be done by standardising contractor arrangements that are out of scope of IR35. Meanwhile, the causes of unwarranted use of contractors should be addressed by reducing the cost difference between contractor and employee.
Fundamentally, businesses hire contractors instead of full-time employees because it can be cheaper.
Personally, I am more in favour of hiring employees compared to contractors – I think it is better for both parties. Fundamentally, businesses need a talented and stable workforce and employees must receive their full rights and benefits. Hiring can be made much easier by using a specialist company that deals with all employment issues, including law, taxes, HR and compliance. After a year of pandemic, the labour market needs new ideas and flexible solutions, not new tax rules.
By Roderick van Vliet, Head of Legal at Remote
In a broad sense, what policies does the South Korean government use to oversee foreign investment?
In a broad sense, Korea is quite a foreign investment-friendly state. However, we would say the Korean government approaches foreign investments coming into Korea and foreign investments going outside of Korea differently. Generally speaking, foreign investments coming into Korea are freely allowed, as long as they are properly reported. On the other hand, foreign investments bounding outside of Korea are more regulated and often require prior approval from the Korean regulators such as the Bank of Korea.
How has the 2017 Foreign Investment Promotion Act (FIPA) altered the regulation of foreign investment in the country?
The Foreign Investment Promotion Act (“FIPA”) was first enacted in 1998. Since the enactment of the FIPA, the Korean government has implemented policies to provide several incentives to foreign investors in order to attract more foreign investments into Korea. These incentives include tax incentives, subsidies, and foreign investor visas.
In the past, the Korean government’s interest was the amount of investment made by the foreign investors. However, in my view, more recently, the Korean government’s interest has shifted to the quality of the investment by attracting foreign investments in high value-added industries.
Are there other significant laws governing how foreign investment is handled?
FIPA applies only to certain foreign investments. The primary form of foreign investments first coming into Korea is equity investment (e.g. corporate formation). FIPA applies to a foreign investment whereby the foreign investor purchases shares of a Korean company in the amount of at least KRW 100 million (approximately USD 88,370) and the foreign investor will own at least 10% of shares in the Korean company as a result of the investment. In other words, if the foreign investor’s investment is less than KRW 100 million, we will have to look if any other law or regulations apply. For example, in such a case, the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act (as well as regulations promulgated thereunder) could apply.
In my view, more recently, the Korean government’s interest has shifted to the quality of the investment by attracting foreign investments in high value-added industries.
What regulatory issues are commonly encountered by foreign individuals or organisations attempting to invest in South Korea?
As we mentioned above, as long as the foreign investor makes the proper report for the foreign investment into Korea and is substantiated with the supporting documents, then the foreign investor should be in good shape.
Making the proper report is quite important because it could delay and complicate the process when the foreign investor attempts to later repatriate its investment back to its home state.
How would you advise that foreign investors avoid or overcome these hurdles?
We would say the foreign investors consult with a lawyer or an expert beforehand so that any required report is properly prepared and made.
About Rieu Kim and Hyuk Jun Jung
Rieu Kim: I have been with Barun Law since 2010 and before that I worked as an attorney at a boutique corporate law firm in California and at a major Korean electronics company.
Hyuk Jun Jung: I have been with Barun Law since 2014 and before that I worked as a Judge Advocate with the Korean Army.
Rieu Kim: Together, we have extensive experience advising Korean and international companies in relation to both contentious and non-contentious matters in Korea and outside of Korea. More specifically, we frequently advise clients in relation to their corporate activities in and outside of Korea, such as foreign investments, corporate formation, corporate reorganisations, contract reviews, M&A, joint ventures and employment.
Hyuk Jun Jung: We also represent clients in arbitration cases before the arbitral bodies, such as KCAB, the ICC and the HKIAC. I also represent clients in complex civil and commercial domestic litigation cases before the Korean courts. Our balanced experience in both advisory and contentious matters allow us to comprehensively understand the legal issues the clients are currently facing and may face, thereby allowing me to better support them and to create more values to them.
Rieu Kim, Senior Foreign Attorney (Partner)
rieu.kim@barunlaw.com
Hyung Jun Jung, Partner
hyukjun.jung@barunlaw.com
Barun Law LLC
Address: Barun Law Building, 92 Gil 7 Teheran-Ro Gangnam-Gu, Seoul 135-846
Tel: +82 2 3476 5599
Fax: +82 2 3476 5995
Website: barunlaw.com
Barun Law was founded in 1998 and quickly took its place among Korea’s top full-service law firms. It is now comprised of over 220 attorneys who, together with highly qualified support staff, provide a full range of legal services.
Last year, Chanel's worldwide brand was valued at $13.7 billion, an increase of more than $2 billion on the previous year and three times what it was worth in 2017, according to Statista. It is therefore no surprise that the company is extremely vigilant in pursuing infringement of its trademark, which serves to undermine its brand. Indeed, Chanel is notorious for its efforts in defending it against misuse and infringement.
Alongside various ongoing legal battles with retailers who sell allegedly counterfeit Chanel goods, the company has also begun a legal action in London against an online retailer (Kensulate Corporation Ltd, which owns the Crepslocker online store) that sells authentic Chanel goods.
Chanel v Crepslocker: the arguments
The France-based fashion house accuses Crepslocker of infringing the Chanel trademark by tarnishing its positioning as a luxury fashion brand. Its principal arguments against Crepslocker fall under four main headings:
In its defence, Crepslocker invokes the exhaustion of Chanel’s rights to the sold products. Under the trademark exhaustion rule, after the first sale of a trademarked product by the trademark holder, or with their consent, the holder can no longer control the subsequent sale(s) of the product. The exception is that the trademark owner can oppose subsequent sales for legitimate reasons, especially when the condition of the products has been materially changed or impaired.
Crepslocker further argues that the distinction which Chanel makes between the goods that it sells online and those it does not is artificial. According to Crepslocker, mixing Chanel products with sportswear does not tarnish its reputation, and Chanel has separately collaborated with sports apparel manufacturers for its products.
In prior cases where conflict existed between luxury brands and online resellers, British courts were bound by guidance from the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘CJEU’) – until Brexit took effect last year. Now that the UK is no longer part of the EU, the dispute will be subject to English law. Post-Brexit, as of January 2021, the UK’s Supreme Court is no longer bound by decisions of the CJEU. However, British courts are free to take such decisions into account in their own rulings.
In terms of trademark rights exhaustion, the Trademarks Act 1994 is fully harmonised with EU legislation: Directive (EU) 2015/2436. Both approximate to the laws of individual Member States relating to trademarks, stipulating the principle of trademark exhaustion and providing the same exception.
As of January 2021, the UK’s Supreme Court is no longer bound by decisions of the CJEU.
What the CJEU says
There have been several notable CJEU cases which establish a fairly consistent precedent: they indicate that the EU’s main judicial body is protective of trademark owners. Of these, three stand out.
From a competition law perspective, in the leading Case C 230/16 Coty Germany GmbH v Parfümerie Akzente GmbH, the CJEU ruled that luxury brand owners are entitled to implement selective distribution systems, i.e. sale systems where they control the distribution chain, in order to preserve the luxury image of their respective goods. This entitlement is on condition that the selection of resellers is undertaken based on “objective criteria of a qualitative nature that are laid down uniformly for all potential resellers and applied in a non-discriminatory fashion and that the criteria laid down do not go beyond what is necessary”. The ruling allowed brand owners to exclude the internet sale of their goods through contractual clauses.
In Case C 59/08 Copad SA v Christian Dior couture SA, the CJEU held that when a licensee of the trademark owner sells goods in a discount store, in spite of the contractual provisions of the licence which do not allow the licensee to do this because of the trademark’s prestige, the trademark proprietor can invoke the rights conferred by that trademark against the licensee. This can happen provided it has been established that that contravention damages the allure and prestigious image which confers an aura of luxury on those goods.
[ymal]
When it comes to packaging, the CJEU held, in Case C 324/09 L’Oréal versus eBay, that selling a product after removing its original packaging may be opposed by the trademark holder “where the consequence of that removal is that essential information, such as information relating to the identity of the manufacturer or the person responsible for marketing the cosmetic product, is missing. Where the removal of the packaging has not resulted in the absence of that information, the trademark proprietor may nevertheless oppose the resale of an unboxed perfume or cosmetic product bearing his trademark, if he establishes that the removal of the packaging has damaged the image of the product and, hence, the reputation of the trademark.”
These decisions show that controlling the sales channels and having respect for the integrity of the original packaging are acceptable exceptions to the trademark exhaustion rule. Although they are no longer obliged to follow CJEU rulings, it is unlikely that the higher courts in the UK will depart from established trademark principles without well-grounded reasons.
Crepslocker used to sell both new and second-hand Chanel products. In the case of new goods, it may be possible that the UK courts will deem the situation similar to those already mentioned in the CJEU cases. However, an element of novelty rests in the used products which Crepslocker kept in consignment from its customers. Here, the courts would probably consider balancing not only Chanel’s rights against those of Creplocker, but also consider the (natural persons) owner’s rights of the used products to have a platform to sell these goods.
it is unlikely that the higher courts in the UK will depart from established trademark principles without well-grounded reasons.
Chilling effect
Should the dispute end in a settlement or a win for Chanel, this may well have a chilling effect on online resellers of other luxury brands in the UK and elsewhere in Europe.
It can be argued that maintaining the prestige and value of luxury brands, by setting and keeping sales standards and specific outlets, protects both the brands and the consumers of luxury goods, because the large investment they make in purchasing them is not easily diminished. However, part of Crepslocker’s business responds to a genuine consumer need to own luxury products, and the corresponding demand for them. Careful consideration should be given to determining whether the second-hand luxury goods market is different from the new luxury goods market and if the exception to the trademark exhaustion principle still applies or not.
Flavia Stefura, Senior Associate
MPR Partners
Address: 6A Barbu Delavrancea Street, Building C, Ground Floor, 1st District, 011355 Bucharest, Romania
Tel: (40-21) 310 17 17
Fax: (40-21) 310 17 18
E-mail: office@mprpartners.com
Flavia Stefura is a part of the advisory department at MPR Law, being primarily involved in IP, data privacy, competition, consumer protection and M&A matters. Bringing a wealth of experience from her work on behalf of reputed international law firms present on the Romanian market, Flavia is also versed in corporate and commercial, employment, regulatory as well as administrative matters. She has advised high profile clients active in various industry sectors including retail, FMCG, banking and finance.
The last 18 months have changed how the world works, and the legal sector is no exception. We seem to have almost daily announcements from firms that are planning to adopt long-term flexible working policies, permanently reduce office capacity and introduce a blend of office and home-based working. As such, this hybrid model of working - mixing both virtual and in-office – is likely to become the norm in the post-pandemic world.
However, while virtual working in some form is here to stay, we are also seeing an emerging trend of law firms moving a few people into new markets without establishing a “real” base. These law firms “without real estate” could be a step too far, particularly when it comes to providing the best service to global clients, supporting local communities and nurturing and attracting the next generation of legal talent.
Clients need expert local knowledge they can trust
Interlaw has argued in the past that corporate “flag planting” – where major firms open an office in a jurisdiction and parachute in a few lawyers with the belief that they will win work by trading upon their reputation and track record - is no substitute for in-depth market knowledge that only established local firms can provide, particularly for global clients.
While we are working in different times, virtual working is not a completely new phenomenon. Pre-pandemic, we were already operating in a world where clients were increasingly requiring borderless, tech-savvy, enterprising and accessible legal services providers that could combine global reach with in-depth local expertise. Elite global networks had become agile, digitally enabled organisations capable of servicing the most complex, multi-jurisdictional client needs and providing a real alternative to the “traditional” international law firm model.
However, to not have an office base in an overseas jurisdiction at all would arguably go against what clients really want to see from their law firms. Pre-pandemic, Interlaw conducted global research among general counsel to find out what they wanted from an international legal provider, which revealed they were more focussed on the calibre of the service they received than the structure of their provider. With this focus on quality in mind, many general counsels also reported difficulties in finding a single law firm with the geographical reach in the practice areas they needed and reported issues around inconsistent working practices between the offices of international firms, as well as inconsistent local insight and cultural awareness.
These law firms “without real estate” could be a step too far.
This need for consistently high standards across all geographical markets is arguably impossible to deliver if the firm chooses not to put down firm roots in the jurisdictions in which it operates. Ours is a profession built on trust and relationships – clients want to know they can trust their legal provider to deliver the best service and advice, both in terms of legal knowledge and understanding the nuances of the local culture of that jurisdiction.
While we have all had to manage our client relationships virtually over the past eighteen months, clients still want the reassurance that their firm has an established base in the relevant jurisdiction. Having no office gives the impression that the presence in that region is transient, which can be withdrawn as quickly as it can appear. In a time of uncertainty, clients want as much certainty as possible – something only an established, expert firm in-country can provide.
Local firms provide much more than legal knowledge
One thing that always strikes me when I talk to our partner firms is just how involved they are in their local communities. They offer so much more than high-quality legal advice - they support local initiatives, nurture home-grown talent by encouraging people from all backgrounds to consider a career in law, and provide pro-bono advice to charities and other not-for-profit organisations. Our lawyers sit on the boards of organisations that want to drive greater diversity in the legal sector, are heavily involved in their local jurisdictions’ networking groups and are recognized for their corporate social responsibility work in supporting vulnerable groups in their society.
For example, following the devastating blast in Lebanon last year, our partner firm, Tohme Law Firm, provided pro bono legal support to NGOs and supported an initiative called “Together LiBeirut”, whose volunteer members are dedicated to helping with the reconstruction effort in the city, as well as providing medical and mental health support to those impacted by the blast.
In a time of uncertainty, clients want as much certainty as possible – something only an established, expert firm in-country can provide.
These are things that you do not get if you move a few non-local lawyers into a region without establishing those deep local connections.
The next generation of lawyers need to experience the office environment
It has been documented by many commentators that junior lawyers are likely to be the hardest hit by the pandemic. For these lawyers, it has resulted in a complete change to both how they work and how they are mentored and coached towards the next stages of their careers.
At the end of last year, Interlaw set out to gauge the impact the huge upheaval has had on the next generation of legal talent and their career ambitions. Interviewing over 100 lawyers at senior associate level and below as part of our next generation lawyers initiative, many acknowledged the positives that could come from a more hybrid way of working, including a better work / life balance and an improved use of technology in the legal industry to streamline some of the processes.
However, while working from home and increased access to digital platforms have several major benefits, the respondents acknowledged that this had also resulted in longer working hours due to a lack of clear definition around the working day. Importantly, they also miss face-to-face interaction with peers, mentors and clients – a crucial factor in the development of the next generation of legal talent.
The balance between more formal and informal mentoring is something that was also discussed at some of our recent virtual events. While formal mentoring and training are clearly important, many also talked about how they are missing the more informal side of learning about the profession, such as stopping by someone’s office for a catch-up or working closely alongside their mentor on a piece of work. As one of our participants said: “The best mentorship happens if it comes naturally.”
[ymal]
So, if law firms believe that they can operate without a base in a country, but via just a few individuals parachuted in, they run a real risk of missing out on the legal talent of the future. Similarly, the country concerned also runs a real risk of missing out on developing its own home-grown legal talent of the future.
Forward to better
While some virtual practices have undoubtedly improved how the legal sector operates, abandoning the office culture completely would be counterproductive, particularly when it comes to providing the best quality international legal advice to clients, supporting local communities and developing the next generation of lawyers. For clients, having an established base provides the reassurance that they are working with a high-quality firm with deep local knowledge, and for new talent, it provides the “on the job” learning and mentoring that is impossible to create online.
The most effective hybrid model for global legal services should be the best of both worlds. We should be taking the best of innovation from the past eighteen months and blending it with tried and tested ways of working to create something of value for our international clients, our local communities and the future of the profession.
Glenn M Cunningham, Chair
Interlaw
Email: gcunningham@goodwin.com
Glenn M Cunningham is Chair of elite global network Interlaw, which has over 7,500 lawyers based in over 150 cities around the world. Providing organisations across the globe with the highest quality cross-border legal advice, Interlaw and its partner firms offer a seamless, efficient, cost-effective level of service attune to local laws, rules, regulations and customs.
Glenn is also Chair of Shipman & Goodwin’s business litigation and intellectual property practice groups, representing publicly traded and privately held companies in intellectual property and technology cases. He is based in Hartford, Connecticut, USA.
