Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
What are common cases you instruct on?
As a podiatrist, I work mostly on personal injury or negligence to the feet, ankles and lower legs, focusing on the long term effect those injuries have upon mobility, gait and posture. These cases can arise from an injury sustained in the workplace, a road traffic or cycling accident, negligence in surgery, and many other causes.
Where a patient has an injury that impacts their ability to walk, to be mobile or has continued pain, we can get involved.
The cases we see often require the use of bespoke made specialised insoles called “orthoses” which often help to optimise foot leg and back function. We also refer patients to bespoke shoemakers if we believe this is necessary.
Expert witnesses have become an indispensable part of much of the increasing amount of litigation; how can your opinion change cases?
Cases involving injury or negligence to feet, ankles, lower legs all too often focus medically and surgically upon the injury site(s) alone. Our podiatric analysis and reporting focuses on the dynamics of how the injuries change the patient’s gait and posture, creating pain and injury elsewhere, and the long-term impact these injuries have on a patient’s daily life. Podiatrists concentrate upon how the judicious use of suitable in-shoe orthoses, and other non-surgical treatments, can beneficially alter long term outcomes. I believe the podiatric opinion we offer helps those involved to see the solutions that are available to help improve mobility and to mitigate some of the issues that the injury has created so improving the long-term quality of life of the patient. Where surgery has previously been proposed we can often offer an alternative for the Court to consider.
Our opinion provides an honest view, based on many years of experience, as to how best the skills of the podiatrist can be engaged to optimise mobility for the patient at a fair cost through non-surgical means.
What evidence and analysis do you need in order to conduct a thorough investigation?
Ahead of any investigation, we need to review the treatment management to date, history of injuries sustained, and any relevant orthopaedic or podiatric reports that have already been compiled. This may include an analysis of the injury and impacts of other medical professionals or personal statements from the patient.
How do you come to your diagnosis and recommendations?
We consider all the data provided, then at a consultation we examine the patient both statically and dynamically. This examination will be with and without any existing orthoses, footwear adjustments or walking aids the patient has used or had manufactured. Where appropriate, we will use our onsite X-ray facilities as part of the diagnosis and we routinely use an in-shoe computerised pressure analysis system that offers quantifiable evidence of the patient’s gait pattern. Taking all the data into account we use our podiatric knowledge and experience to provide a diagnosis and recommendations on treatment including costings.
How complicated can this become when analysing injuries? Is time of the essence here?
Podiatrists see both acute and chronic injury so we can see patients at any point in their journey, however, we tend to be involved once the acute injury management has been completed, and the injuries and the effects of the injuries incurred have become ‘chronic’. Time is important, so we use computerised pressure analysis to objectively detect progress levels and offer prognoses. We offer rapid analysis and concise report writing skills, with recommendations built into the report.
How do you overcome complications in order to ensure the analysis is as accurate as possible?
We have on-site, the latest clinical analysis technology available with which we are extremely familiar. We are an experienced team with in-house facilities including an X-ray system, video gait analysis software and computer pressure analysis. If required, we have access to more advanced MRI or CT scanning services locally. This, along with our many years of experience means our analysis is as up to date, and accurate as could be possible.
Gait and Posture Centre
Flat 6, Harmont House
20 Harley Street
London
W1G 9PH
0207 636 4465
Simon Costain is the owner and senior partner in the Gait and Posture Centre LLP and has more than 45 years of practice experience in Podiatry. He held a Consultant Podiatry post in the NHS and has worked in Harley Street since 1985.
Simon is one of the founders of Podiatric Surgery and Podiatric Sports medicine in the UK, but for many years has specialised in non-surgical gait evaluation techniques and, where possible, offers alternatives to surgery for foot problems. He divides his time between his private practice and some expert witness work.
I am asked why businesses opt for litigation when mediation often results in fewer costs and less hostility. There is no simple answer. In 2007 a survey of firms engaged in High Court Litigation revealed the startling statistic that 47% of commercial litigation was fuelled by personal animosity between those running their respective companies! In today’s climate of shareholder power, it is hardly credible that such motives could sustain expensive litigation by respectable companies.
In February 2013, the AAA undertook a major research study aimed at examining the attitudes and experiences associated with the use of non-judicial dispute resolution. The study examined how a broad sample of businesses which included Fortune 1000 companies, mid-size public companies, and privately owned businesses, employed their resources in dispute resolution. The study drew distinctions between “most dispute wise” and “least dispute wise” companies. Dispute-wise, a company’s legal group is more likely to be working in an environment where senior management is focused on preserving relationships and settling disputes and less concerned with aggressively litigating every case. Moreover, the survey results make it quite clear that “most dispute wise” companies’ business management practices are associated with positive business outcomes. Key benefits included stronger relationships with customers, suppliers, employees, and partners, and an appreciation for the fairness and speed of ADR processes in resolving disputes with customers and suppliers. Relative to the stronger relationship findings, it is interesting that the price/earnings ratios (often considered as a measure or indicator of stockholder confidence in the management of a company) for the “most dispute wise” companies averaged 28% higher than the mean for all the publicly held companies in the survey and 68% higher than the mean for companies in the “least dispute wise” category. These outcomes suggest that the “most dispute wise” companies are particularly concerned with maintaining good relationships with all their stakeholders.
Flexibility is one of the keys to a successful mediation and it would be better if the parties were to agree that such time limits could be less rigorously applied.
The obvious savings in terms of legal costs, productive use of management time and certainty of outcome suggest that all companies should strive to be among the “most dispute wise”. Moreover, it is now becoming the norm for the larger international corporations to include a dispute resolution clause in all their contracts which requires the parties to attempt to mediate any dispute before resorting to arbitration or litigation. Such clauses have been held by the English Commercial Court to be binding and enforceable. The one criticism of such clauses is that they tend to impose strict and unrealistic deadlines which do not give mediation a chance to resolve the dispute. Flexibility is one of the keys to a successful mediation and it would be better if the parties were to agree that such time limits could be less rigorously applied. There is a risk of course that any flexibility might be exploited by one side or the other, but nonetheless, given the clear commercial benefits of resolving disputes sooner rather than later, that might be an acceptable risk.
In 2016-17, IMI launched and conducted the Global Pound Conference into corporate attitudes to dispute resolution. The Report published in 2018 by Herbert Smith Freehills deserves detailed study. One of the issues which the international business community identified as a failure was the absence of an enforcement provision for mediated settlement agreements. UNCITRAL’s WGII, to which I was a delegate on behalf of the International Academy of Mediators, produced the Singapore Convention which became effective in 2020. I hope that UNCITRAL’s success in achieving a Convention for the enforcement of Settlement Agreements arrived at in international commercial mediations to match the New York Convention for the enforcement of arbitral awards, will alleviate any reluctance by businesses to mediate their commercial disputes.
The year of pandemic restrictions has had a seismic effect upon traditional mediation. My colleagues and I have been conducting mediations remotely for over a year with no appreciable difference in terms of percentage resolutions[1]. There are appreciable financial advantages. Travel costs and time for parties, lawyers and experts to travel to spend a day together in one location can be enormous especially in international disputes. It is easier to obtain the presence of key individuals, especially the decision makers and experts, if they can attend a mediation from their own offices or homes. The Commercial High Court has backed the call of the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls for disputes to be resolved through remote mediation rather than wait for the courts to re-open. I anticipate that an unreasonable refusal to mediate remotely may well incur similar costs penalties as with person-to-person mediations[2]. Singapore, a leading country in terms of mediation, has issued a protocol encouraging the use of virtual mediation with these words:
“……the pandemic has severely impacted business communities - fracturing business and contractual relationships, sparking disputes and destroying the value and viability of businesses. With expedited mediation, businesses can devote their resources towards navigating other challenges, instead of diverting them to conduct potentially protracted and expensive legal proceedings. This will put them in a stronger position to recover amidst the growing economic uncertainty[3].” Surely that exhortation is equally valid for all businesses everywhere?
In 2007 a survey of firms engaged in High Court Litigation revealed the startling statistic that 47% of commercial litigation was fuelled by personal animosity between those running their respective companies!
Another question I am still asked is “Are barristers no use in mediation?”. My answer has never changed over all the years I have been mediating and since Philip Naughton and I set up the Bar ADR Committee. Any advocate who knows what mediation is and can adapt their professional approach accordingly is a huge asset in mediation. The Bar Vocational Course has a compulsory ADR module, and all advocates are under a professional duty to advise their clients about the suitability of their dispute for resolution through mediation. My colleagues and I teach advocates that litigants pay them to ‘win’ in court, but disputants pay them to ‘help resolve’ their disputes in mediation. There are now dozens of highly successful barrister mediators. More importantly, I find that in most of the mediations in which one or the other party is represented by counsel, their help and approach is invaluable. I still hear some solicitors say: “I never use counsel for a mediation because they can only litigate”. What an opportunity their client is missing! If the value of the dispute bears the expense, a ‘mediation trained’ advocate will invariably justify their presence. My colleagues and I regularly teach Mediation Advocacy to advocates all over the world, and no other jurisdiction considers a mediation advocate’s appearance on behalf of the disputants in mediation as anything other than an advantage. I was one of those helping to organise the very first ICC International Mediation Competition in Paris sixteen years ago. From a handful of teams taking part then, this year, in spite of COVID obliging it all to be done remotely, there were 350 students and 48 teams from 39 countries. It was immensely gratifying to recognise students from previous years, now in practice as lawyers or academia, reappearing as team coaches. The knowledge that there are now several generations of lawyers the world over who have been trained in dispute resolution through mediation rather than litigation gives me hope for a better world. If I have played a small part in achieving that, I am content.
Michel Kallipetis QC FCIArb
Commercial Mediator
Administation: + 44 (0)20 7127 9223
E-mail: michel@kallipetis.com
www.independentmediators.co.uk
In 2018 I received a silver Griffin from Gray’s Inn marking my 50 years as a barrister. In 2007, having been Head of Littleton Chambers for nearly ten years, and having sat as a deputy judge for some twenty-five years, the last fifteen of which as a deputy High Court Judge in QB Chancery and the TCC, I decided to leave full-time practice as a barrister and start a full-time practice as a civil and commercial mediator. My conversion to mediation as a more effective means of resolving disputes was inspired by my good friend and colleague, the late Philp Naughton QC, who gave a talk at the Bar Conference in the late eighties. That prompted me to invite CEDR to train a dozen barristers in Chambers, and thus my career as a mediator began. By the time I left Chambers, I was mediating more often than appearing in Court, and Nicolas Pryor and I established Independent Mediators Limited. We were soon joined by Bill Marsh and Charles Dodson: now we are nine independent full-time mediators operating as the first real Mediation Chambers in the UK.
[1] See “Online Mediation Survey Results July 2020” www.independentmediators.co.uk
[2] See “Is this the time for a new Halsey?” 10th July 2020 ibid
[3] SIMC’s Covid-19 Protocol 2020
With experience from the ‘other side’ after representing insurance companies, Joshua now works with accident victims on their cases, leaving the below article to be an insightful read.
When should you consider making a claim for an injury following a trip and fall and what are the legal elements to the case?
If the injury occurred because a property or business owner did not maintain their property properly or did not warn visitors of potential dangers, you may have a claim. Some examples include falling over equipment or supplies left in a walkway, an uneven walking surface, or the floor was wet and slippery. For simplicity, this article will generally refer to a ‘property owner’. However, mere ownership of the property is not enough. The fault lies with the entity who “manages, controls and/or is responsible for the property”. Understand, the property owner is NOT responsible for all injuries that occur on the property. Instead, to be successful, you must prove 1) you were legally allowed to be on the property; 2) there was a duty to keep the property safe; and, 3) the property owner had knowledge of the danger. Finally, you must prove the property owner’s knowledge of the danger was greater than that of the injured person. This means there is a burden on the injured person to prove they were not aware of the danger.
How long after a fall can you make a claim?
The statute of limitations varies in each jurisdiction. In Georgia, an injured person has two years to file a lawsuit for injuries. However, do not wait that long to start the claim. Immediately after the fall, you should gather as much information as possible. Take pictures of the dangerous condition that caused the fall and of any visible injuries. Report the fall immediately to the property owner and ask for an Incident Report. Ask for contact information from any witnesses in the area. Property conditions change, memories fade and witnesses move on – it is essential to lock these in. Immediately have a doctor examine any injuries and follow all medical instructions. Consult an attorney before talking to any business or insurance company related to the property owner.
How do you win slip and fall cases and what complications arise?
Property owners defend and fight slip and fall cases vigorously. Oftentimes, the injured person will be blamed for the fall by arguing they were not looking where they were going, or they were not being careful in how they were walking. Expect the property owner to present evidence of ongoing inspection procedures and how there was no way they could have been aware of the danger. An immediate request to the property owner to preserve and keep the video from all cameras maintained on the property must be made. The bottom line is surveillance videos do not lie – if the fall is caught on video its contents will go a long way in determining whether the case can be won. If the property owner will not voluntarily provide the surveillance video that is usually a tell-tale sign the case can be won. If there was surveillance video and the property owner did not keep it, they may be deemed to have destroyed evidence which will result in them losing defenses that may otherwise be available. Experts and consultants in premises liability are also key. Professionals with years of experience managing properties will give testimony about the way in which the property owner failed and how potential codes were violated. Finally, showing the property owner knew about the hazard and either ignored it, or failed to fix it will result in a win. And remember, at least in Georgia, even if you were partially at fault, you will win if you were less than 50% at fault.
Joshua S. Stein
Managing Partner
J. Stein Law Firm
p: 404.418.6379
F: 404.393.8350
Joshua Stein is the Managing Partner of the J. Stein Law Firm. Following graduation from the UGA School of Law, Joshua worked for two years as In-House Counsel at Progressive Insurance Company and then 12 years for Goodman McGuffey, a regional insurance defense law firm, where he became an equity partner. In 2017, Joshua ‘switched sides’ and began using the inside knowledge he learned from representing insurance companies to represent those hurt due to the negligence of someone else.
Within a year of the first confirmed case of the novel coronavirus in the U.S., the FDA authorised the Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna COVID-19 — and later, the Johnson & Johnson vaccines — for emergency use, making the COVID-19 vaccines the fastest ever vaccines to be approved for widespread consumer use in history. Considering the timeline for vaccine production often takes upwards of fifteen years, the rapid development of a safe and effective COVID-19 vaccine is a marvel of scientific research and teamwork. While it is vital that such a preventive cure be adapted by Americans, it is important to be aware of the processes that brought us the vaccine so quickly. This article will highlight the legal implications and safety concerns involved with of accelerated COVID-19 vaccine development and approval, and outline issues facing the pharmaceutical industry with this and other types of vaccines.
The Vaccine Development Timeline, Compressed
Vaccines are biological products approved and regulated by the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) under Section 351 of the Public Health Service Act (PHSA). Regardless of the timeline for production, vaccines must go through extensive testing before going on the market. Only vaccines that have been approved by the FDA can be used in the U.S. To be approved, the FDA must determine that the vaccine is safe, potent, and pure based on data from laboratory studies and clinical trials. The FDA licenses a vaccine only once it is proven safe and effective, and when its benefits outweigh the known risks.
“Medicine is clearly critical to the health of our families and communities”, shares Marie Napoli. “However, we have seen FDA-approved products be recalled for various reasons, including serious side effects, in the past. Research is ever-evolving, and it is important to stay informed about the possible health conditions that could develop from taking prescription medication.”
There are ways to accelerate certain stages of the vaccine development process. Drug companies can apply for the FDA to designate a biologic as a “Fast Track” product if it will treat or prevent a serious life-threatening illness and if no other alternative is available, and if laboratory, animal model, or human data is promising. The program gives drug developers more frequent meetings with the FDA to discuss the drug's development plan and ensure the collection of appropriate data needed to support drug approval. It also gives developers more frequent written communication about the design of the proposed clinical trials and the use of biomarkers.
Considering the timeline for vaccine production often takes upwards of fifteen years, the rapid development of a safe and effective COVID-19 vaccine is a marvel of scientific research and teamwork.
The FDA is sometimes able to approve a biologic before the intended clinical benefit is demonstrated. The Accelerated Approval (AA) Program gives the FDA authority to approve a biologic based on its effect on a “surrogate” endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit. For example, the clinical endpoint of a stroke medication might be that the patient has fewer or less severe strokes. Rather than measuring the incidence or severity of the patient’s strokes, which is time consuming, the medication may be measured for its effect on blood pressure, which is known to correlate strongly with stroke occurrence and severity. Upon receipt of Accelerated Approval, the drugmaker must conduct studies to verify and describe the drug’s benefit. If the studies cannot verify the benefit, the FDA may withdraw approval.
If a product is found to be defective or potentially harmful, a recall is the most effective way to remove it from the market. The FDA may request that a product be recalled, but the recall can be conducted by the company’s own initiative as well.
What if a Vaccine Causes Injury?
Serious adverse reactions to vaccines are rare. Unfortunately, a consumer cannot pursue personal injury or wrongful death litigation against vaccine manufacturers in the event of an injury. This is due to the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA). Enacted in 1986, the NCVIA gives vaccine manufacturers the ability to continue their work without having to halt production due to lawsuits.
Although vaccine manufacturers are immune to lawsuits, financial compensation is possible for vaccine-related injury or wrongful death under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP). Anyone can file a claim. About 60% of all compensation by the VICP comes in the form of negotiated settlements, meaning compensation is still possible even if it cannot be proved whether the vaccine caused the injury.
To be approved, the FDA must determine that the vaccine is safe, potent, and pure based on data from laboratory studies and clinical trials.
“There are always avenues to pursue justice and I always ensure that every possibility is exhausted. Many times, monetary compensation is what comes to mind as the final result of a case,” says Napoli. “But I have been a litigator for many years, and I have to say that accountability, an answer and acknowledgement of wrongdoing can be just as important to a family who has lost a loved one.”
To increase transparency between vaccine manufacturers and consumers, mandated healthcare providers must report all adverse reactions to a vaccine to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a program run by the CDC and FDA. VAERS investigates adverse reactions to vaccines, using the gathered information as an early warning system to detect possible safety issues with vaccines. Considering that serious injury from vaccines is already unlikely, VAERS data further decreases the risk of unsafe vaccines reaching consumers.
In addition, the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) monitors the safety of vaccines and conducts studies about rare and serious adverse events following immunisation. The VSD conducts safety studies based on questions and concerns about immunisations that arise from VAERS data and medical literature.
Special Considerations for the COVID-19 Vaccine
COVID-19 vaccines are considered a countermeasure to a pandemic. A countermeasure is a vaccination, medication, device, or other item recommended to diagnose, prevent or treat a declared pandemic, epidemic or security threat. Injury from countermeasures is covered by a separate program, the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP). The CICP is a program of the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act), which authorises the CICP to provide benefits to certain individuals or estates of individuals who sustain a covered serious physical injury as the direct result of the administration or use of covered countermeasures identified in and administered or used under a PREP Act declaration. The CICP also may provide benefits to certain survivors of individuals who die as a direct result of the administration or use of such covered countermeasures.
Protecting Consumers from Harmful Drugs
The rapid development and deployment of the COVID-19 vaccine raise the question of whether the FDA is cutting corners in its approval process for other new drugs. Research has shown that over the past four decades, the FDA has approved drugs increasingly fast based on increasingly weak evidence. This includes approving drugs based on only one pivotal clinical study as opposed to two or more, and increased reliance on data from surrogate endpoints instead of intended clinical benefit. This means it is possible that new drugs will not be substantially better than previous ones. Relying on surrogate endpoints may take the focus away from achieving the clinical benefit. For instance, the surrogate endpoint of a cancer drug shrinking tumours may not lead to the clinical benefit of improved survival rates after treatment. Hasty approval based on weak evidence inevitably means a higher likelihood of product recalls. Requiring higher standards for approval of drugs will decrease the number of harmful drugs that reach consumers.
The COVID-19 vaccine is vital to ending the pandemic and returning life back to normal. Apprehension toward getting vaccinated is understandable considering that it is a brand-new vaccine, but medical and scientific evidence affirms that the benefits of vaccines outweigh the risks. Serious adverse reactions to vaccines are rare, and the approved COVID-19 vaccines (and the dozens of ones currently in clinical trials) are going through stringent testing. Consumers can find comfort in knowing that options for compensation are available to them in the unlikely event of injury, and that there are various systems in place to record adverse reactions to vaccines to prevent widespread harm.
“Knowing the devastating effects defective drugs and medical devices can have on someone only strengthens my resolve to represent those victims”, states Napoli.
Marie has been an attorney for over twenty-five years. She has experience handling personal injury, medical malpractice litigation, pharmaceutical litigation, employment discrimination, civil rights, and mass tort matters. Marie earned her J.D. from St. John’s University Law School and her L.L.M. degree from New York University (NYU) School of Law. She has worked for the New York Appellate Division, 2nd Department and has taught CLE courses on Tort and Civil Procedure at St. John’s University School of Law. As a founding partner of Napoli Shkolnik PLLC, Marie is involved in many depositions and has tried multiple cases to verdict. As a skilled and determined attorney who is well-versed in numerous litigation fields, Marie understands the breadth of the legal issues that particularly affect women injured by pharmaceutical and other defective products.
Concerns that Artificial Intelligence (AI) puts at risk our existence goes as far back as the 1940s (at least), when Isaac Asimov wrote the short stories that later constituted the book I, Robot.
Today, AI is an integral part of the technological innovations that are commonly referred to as the Fourth Industrial Revolution. The fears today are more focused on what AI means for our livelihoods. The reality is that AI is some way short of replacing human abilities to formulate strategies and business plans, but it is a remarkably powerful tool when incorporated into process-driven functions, magnifying the power to collect, process and distribute information to the right parties with startling speed and accuracy.
In the real estate industry, AI can be used to automate mundane tasks and self-improve them over time, benefiting asset managers, portfolio managers, investors and related service providers, such as lawyers.
Applications of AI in real estate
AI technology mimics human behaviour to make machines more intelligent. They can ‘self-learn’, improving and correcting their outputs over time.
Three applications of AI are particularly relevant to the commercial real estate industry. These include:
Natural language processing (NLP) – The analysis of textual data, possibly involving translation of a document or the extraction of key information, such as the tenant’s name from a lease contract.
Image analysis – Analysing images to classify with into certain categories, such as a photo or a map, and detecting/locating objects in images (e.g., does a document contain a signature and where on the page is it?).
Generate predictions and suggestions – Data can be analysed to predict users’ future actions. For example, analysis of users’ interactions in log files can produce conclusions about what their future actions will be, similar to product recommendations based on past buying behaviour.
AI brings many benefits and it will continue to permeate into technical solutions such as VDRs to help automate time-consuming or repetitive tasks
AI in VDRs
AI can be integrated into real estate industry processes through virtual data rooms (VDRs). VDRs bring efficiency and an array of functionalities to real estate transactions as well as management of the assets throughout their lifecycle. They originally served as online versions of the physical spaces where confidential or sensitive information was held for review by authorised parties when it was launched 20 years ago. Today, they constitute a secure, online platform for accessing confidential documents and handling business processes with a range of added functionalities.
Within a VDR, AI can be applied to daily workflows and significantly improve repetitive yet fundamental and time-sensitive tasks. It can transform the work of real estate professionals, streamlining and improving efficiencies in due diligence, sales and the investment management processes.
Key, award-winning features within Drooms VDR proposition include:
Document Translation – Users can work in their preferred language and have a real-time, secure analysis of all the facts relevant to an asset sale.
Auto Allocation – This feature automatically allocates documents to their respective index points. All actions are taken into account by the system, which learns from individuals’ behaviour patterns and refines a document's future index allocations over time.
Auto Naming – Documents are automatically categorised and assigned file names based on analysis of their content, which saves having to review scanned documents and rename them in the VDR environment.
AI brings many benefits and it will continue to permeate into technical solutions such as VDRs to help automate time-consuming or repetitive tasks. However, it is still advisable to keep a ‘human in the loop’ to confirm or reject suggestions made by machines so that users remain in control. This is the case with Drooms’ VDR products.
A competitive edge
A VDR that leverages AI technology can give real estate professionals, including lawyers, the edge in a competitive market when conducting transactions. Due diligence can be conducted extremely efficiently and documents can be updated regularly, giving vendors full control over data. And documents are always ready, so assets can be bought or sold whenever required.
A ‘life cycle’ VDR can be used to manage a company throughout the period of ownership, from purchase, through management and on to divestment.
Traditionally regarded as slow to adopt new technology, the real estate industry is catching up fast. Professionals involved in the market need to adopt beneficial technologies and a VDR incorporating the latest AI technology adds value at all the stages of an asset’s lifecycle, making the process much smoother for all the professionals concerned.
He shares how the U.S. is at risk of falling behind China in relation to AI development and innovation, mainly due to the legal constraints at hand.
There are many competing definitions, so I’m sure to get this wrong, but in my view, Artificial Intelligence (AI) is broadly the ability for a computer (or computerised device) to do something useful, intelligently, which in some cases may be analogous to skills once thought to be the exclusive domain of biological intelligence. “Machine learning”, which you often hear in the same context, and which is prevalent in the scientific literature, refers to the science of “training” computerised machines to do these useful things, intelligently. Contemporary examples include: natural language processing, such as when you talk to a smart device, or your phone, or your car; image recognition, such as when you unlock a computer or smartphone with a camera or fingerprint; classification, such as when your digital camera recognises a face or another object in a scene; prediction, such as when your TV suggests something for you to watch; and many, many other applications. For efficiency, I’ll just refer to “AI” for our discussion.
AI is not new; many of the foundational principles originated in the ’50s and ’60s. You’ve probably heard of the “Turing test”, which is named for a 1950s mathematician—Alan Turing. But the recent confluence of massive data collection (and collections) and plentiful, cheap, and powerful computing resources has created an AI primordial soup, so to speak. These conditions have led to an explosion of new AI technologies.
Our clients are doing clever things in all aspect of AI. Fundamentally, most AI capabilities are enabled by trained models, and broad areas where our clients are innovating include: improving model architectures to increase their performance potential; improving model training so that it is faster, performable on a wider range of devices, and ultimately more effective; applying models to new technology domains to enable entirely new use cases; and improving the computing hardware that enables the aforementioned aspects.
By way of example, your smartphone likely has a dedicated processor for AI tasks, which was not the case just a few years ago. Such hardware enables model training to be performed locally on devices, which in-turn allows models to be personalised based on your own data while simultaneously mitigating data privacy concerns. It also allows for local inferencing, which makes AI-based functions less reliant on remote compute power, such as cloud-based services. However, models that run on devices like smartphones use model architectures enhanced for efficiency as compared to those that run on high-powered computing equipment. This way, your smartphone can do clever things for you all day, without running out of battery by dinner, and without needing data coverage for all those tasks. Thus, like other complex systems, AI offers many avenues for innovation.
Simply describing the invention for what it is, without “selling it”, so to speak, leaves a patent prosecutor or litigator with fewer textual tools to defend a patent’s validity later
Yes, and the volume is growing at an impressive rate. Globally, interest in AI is translating into large research and development budgets, and with that, significant patenting activity. Worldwide patent offices are all reporting the same trends—significant increases in “AI” related filings across many technical domains. We are seeing the same.
Absolutely. AI, and more particularly, machine learning, has its own lexicon. To communicate effectively with our clients, we need to speak that language. For example, understanding the fundamentals of machine learning is, in my view, a prerequisite for understanding many AI-related innovations. And this sort of understanding is critical for describing AI innovations in patents in a way that is likely to survive USPTO and later litigation scrutiny. Recognising that early on, and despite having a significant amount of more general software patenting experience, I, and many of my colleagues at Patterson + Sheridan, have spent considerable time educating ourselves on AI to be more effective for our clients. Thankfully, there is a vast amount of content available, including standalone courses offered through great schools like Stanford and MIT, to educate oneself.
Putting it politely? It is challenging. I’ll save the diatribe (available by request), but in short—a very unfortunate Supreme Court opinion in Alice v CLS Bank spawned an even more unfortunate set of Federal Circuit opinions that weigh heavily in this area. The problem lies in the interpretation of Section 101 of the Patent Act, which defines what is patent eligible subject matter. Whereas Section 101 states broadly that “[w]hoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor subject to the conditions and requirements of this title”, the Courts over time have created “judicial exceptions” barring patentability of, for example, laws of nature and, most pertinent to this context, “abstract ideas”. As I have written in other articles, academics, amici, and even the Federal Circuit itself have explicitly pleaded with Congress to fix the “subject matter eligibility problem”, but no such luck as of yet. This has trickled down to the USPTO too, which has struggled to apply the law consistently to examination. The net result has been a stifling headwind for “computer-implemented inventions”, which include AI-related inventions, trying to make their way through the USPTO.
Judicial activism has unfortunately twisted the law out of sync with its original intent and our technology predilections.
All that said, I do think there is a general consensus now that there is a real problem that is affecting real, valuable innovations in the United States, and that it needs solving. In 2019, Senators Thom Tillis (NC) and Chris Coons (DE) held hearings and seemed to be getting traction on reform in this area, but I think the contentious election bogged it down. Now that we’re through the election cycle, my hope is that this effort will pick up again. In fact, just recently at a Chamber of Commerce event in January, Senator Tillis noted pointedly that “Our patent eligibility jurisprudence is in shambles. … The fact that we have courts saying a garage door opener is an abstract idea and that innovative diagnostic tests are just laws of nature is bewildering to me. If we do not provide great clarity and consistency in this area of law, America will lose the 21st century innovation race.” I concur.
Notably, Senator Tillis along with Senator Tom Cotton (AR) sent a letter to the acting director of the USPTO in March urging the USPTO to implement a pilot program to “avoid unnecessary and inefficient rejections on grounds of patent eligibility, and in the process improve [the USPTO's] effectiveness.” This gives me hope.
I think it’s fair to say that the U.S. has historically been pro-technology from a policy standpoint, and has had a strong patent system to complement that policy. U.S. companies are certainly doing incredible technical work generally, especially in regard to AI. But judicial activism has unfortunately twisted the law out of sync with its original intent and our technology predilections.
Other countries have seemingly aligned their domestic policies towards AI with their legal policies, and that’s hurting the U.S.’s competitiveness in this area. By way of example, China has made building a domestic AI capability a top political priority and is evolving its own intellectual property laws to that end. I believe this is drawing innovation out of the U.S. in the same way that a better tax policy drives companies to move between states in the U.S. Just recently I read an article in which the U.S. had fallen out of the top 10 most innovative countries in the world, which is disheartening, and I think not reflective of our capability. I believe our uncertain legal landscape with respect to critical technologies of the day, like AI, is a factor in that backslide.
judicial activism has unfortunately twisted the law out of sync with its original intent and our technology predilections.
Well, I hate to pick on the Supreme Court, but that group needs to take a consistent stance on textualism versus activism. By way of example, in a 2020 Supreme Court decision regarding trademark law, Romag Fasteners v Fossil Group, the Court clearly deferred to the statutory text and Congress for setting policy:
[T]he place for reconciling competing and incommensurable policy goals like these is before policymakers. This Court’s limited role is to read and apply the law those policymakers have ordained, and here our task is clear.
This is antipodal to the Supreme Court’s recent treatment of patent laws. Indeed, the Supreme Court’s ill-conceived activism with respect to patent law has all but abolished “the law those policymakers have ordained” with respect to Section 101 of the U.S. Patent Act.
Thankfully, there is a simple solution, and one I hope Congress will implement post-haste—statutorily abolish the judicial exceptions to Section 101. We have other statutory gatekeepers that have served patent law well since 1952; namely, Section 102’s requirement that an invention is novel and Section 103’s requirement that an invention is non-obvious. When you read opinions of the various federal courts, and the USPTO’s own examination guidelines and decisions, you see these other requirements (novelty and non-obviousness) frequently commingled with the subject matter eligibility question. That trend suggests we already have the tools, we just need to use them correctly. The law needs to be reset, not rewritten.
An interesting trend in Federal Circuit cases that have upheld computer-implemented inventions challenged on subject matter eligibility grounds, which I would say are the most applicable cases to AI-related inventions generally, is a reliance on how a patent document characterises the invention with respect to ”conventional” solutions (“prior art” in patent parlance). That is, where patentees have gone further than just describing their invention, but have also described why their invention is an improvement over the prior art objectively and/or subjectively, they have fared better in eligibility challenges.
Note that while it is a statutory requirement (Section 112) that an invention, as embodied by the patent claims, is fully described by the patent, the statute does not require any sort of discussion comparing the invention to the state of the art. In fact, historically, patent practitioners have actively avoided any discussion of the prior art in patent documents to avoid “admitting” anything that may be used against them. That practice seems out of touch with the current state of subject matter eligibility law. Consequently, we now include explicit discussions of benefits over the prior art where possible so that USPTO examiners and federal judges alike have a hook for subject matter eligibility considerations despite the challenging case law. I think of it as sort of a cognitive biasing hack, like anchoring.
So, to bring this back to a practical level, it’s important that patent attorneys work with their clients to understand how an invention is a technical improvement to a technical problem in the state of the art, and it’s important for patent attorneys to articulate that in the patent document. Simply describing the invention for what it is, without “selling it”, so to speak, leaves a patent prosecutor or litigator with fewer textual tools to defend a patent’s validity later. And this sort of brings me back around full circle to the importance of speaking the language of AI and understanding its fundamentals so that it’s easier to describe the importance and the improvement of a particular AI invention and to differentiate it from the state of the art—especially since AI has been around for a long time.
Just recently I read an article in which the U.S. had fallen out of the top 10 most innovative countries in the world, which is disheartening, and I think not reflective of our capability.PATENTSPATENPA
Another thing we focus on at Patterson + Sheridan is a willingness, if not an eagerness, to challenge the USPTO and courts alike on the subject matter eligibility issue. For example, we have had good success challenging subject matter eligibility rejections in front of the USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Sometimes traditional prosecution is not the best venue for arguing more technical legal issues, especially in a convoluted area of law such as subject matter eligibility, because not all patent examiners are attorneys, and thus technical legal arguments may not always be fully appreciated. The appeal process allows us a chance to take our advocacy in front of a panel of administrative judges, and to supplement our written advocacy with oral advocacy. I’ve been personally amazed at how years of prosecution can fail to surface an issue that comes up immediately in an oral proceeding. And that’s a great opportunity to finally address and overcome that issue.
Moreover, we utilise data analytics to drive appeal strategies. Specifically, we look at detailed examiner-level and technology centre-level (within the USPTO) statistics on outcomes of various prosecution strategies, such as appealing, requesting continued examination, etc. We utilise this data to present a more analytical recommendation to our clients, which can save significant time and money in the aggregate. By way of example, appealing a first final rejection may not be standard practice, but if the data shows that the examiner is highly likely to require multiple RCEs before grant, but only one appeal, then we may counsel going to appeal instead. The pendency time for appeals has come down over the past few years, which makes this strategy even more, well, appealing.
There are, of course, many more practical and technical strategies that we deploy on a daily basis for our clients, but the aforementioned are some of the more interesting strategies that the current environment has engendered.
Identifying patent counsels (and thereby firms) with actual, relevant AI experience is key. And I suggest a client probe the actual nature of that AI experience. For example, if your invention is an AI architecture enhancement, make sure your patent counsel has relevant experience with AI architectures rather than AI in the more general sense. There are a lot of “apply AI to a problem” patent applications out there where AI is more or less a black box addition, and I worry that clients may struggle to get those allowed when the black box AI-aspect is the only differentiating feature.
A bit more generally, we try to act as strategic technology partners to our clients, not just patent counsellors. To do so, we focus our attention more broadly than just individual patent applications and instead seek to understand how an application fits into our clients’ broader technical and business objectives. This means seeking to understand how our clients’ business objectives and IP objectives interact, how the current matter fits into the overall IP objectives and portfolio, and understanding who our clients’ competitors are and what they are up to, to name just a few things. This is particularly important for AI as many companies are still iterating on how to really use it in their products. I guess you could say, we try to know our clients, not just their matters, so we can give more meaningful advice on their matters. This sounds obvious, I am sure, but it’s not so easy in practice given the pace and daily demands of a busy patent practice. This requires extracurricular time and effort, but I think clients notice and appreciate it.
Beyond all the sort of standard best practices, like having well-established invention capture procedures and generating detailed invention disclosure documents, Clients can and should use their influence as valuable members of our country’s technical establishment to push Congress to pass a law resolving the subject matter eligibility fiasco once and for all.
For me personally, no. As a firm we are monitoring various solutions out there and we have tested a few internally, but most of what is being advertised as “AI” for practitioners is really mere automation of simple tasks. For example, take a set of patent claims and make a flow chart based on those claims. I suppose that’s useful, but it does not tell you if your claims are any good, which requires legal intelligence.
Right now, AI solutions tend to be very task specific, and thus narrow in application. So-called “generalised” artificial intelligence is not here yet, and, I think a ways out. This job is extremely complex at its initial state, and the dynamics of the law make it that much more complex. So I suspect the Patent Bot 9000 won’t be filling seats at your local law firm anytime soon!
I love to work on and race cars, and to watch cars being raced—especially Formula One! Now that I have kids, I am trying to get them into science, technology, and of course, racing. Other than that, I’m an incurable tinkerer, no doubt vestigial of my first career as an engineer, so I can usually be found “fixing” something around the house, which I only broke in the first place about half the time.
Nick Transier • Partner
PATTERSON + SHERIDAN LLP
12555 High Bluff Drive Suite 225, San Diego, CA 92130
Main: 866.623.4844 Ext 7121
Direct: 619.340.0370
Email: ntransier@pattersonsheridan.com
http://www.pattersonsheridan.com
I’m Nick Transier, a registered patent attorney and partner in Patterson + Sheridan’s San Diego office. My career in law started in litigation after attending the University of Texas School of Law, but for many years now I have been focused on building international patent portfolios for clients. My technical background is in Systems Engineering, for which I received undergraduate and graduate degrees from The University of Virginia (Wahoowa!), and I worked as a systems engineer for several years before entering law school. The technologies I work on day-to-day include artificial intelligence and machine learning, complex software, telecommunications, automotive, and consumer electronics, though I do some work in the mechanical and medical device spaces as well.
My firm, Patterson + Sheridan, is based in Texas, but we have offices all over the country. Generally, we help clients obtain and manage a wide range of intellectual property assets, including patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets. We also have a transactional practice focusing on licensing, agreements, mergers, and acquisitions, and a very busy litigation practice. We are often referred to as an “IP boutique” in industry parlance, but we like to think of ourselves as a technology firm since we frequently counsel clients on technical matters that do not necessarily have a formal intellectual property component (e.g., no registered IP right). Most of our attorneys have significant technical backgrounds preceding their legal careers.
With his invaluable experience in testifying in arbitrations as well as state and federal court, Dr May represents what sets DMA Economics apart from others—our solid knowledge base and experience. Below he explains what damages trade secrets can result in and how these are calculated, while addressing the common misconceptions people may have around valuation.
Each of the intellectual property infringements – patent, copyright, trademark and trade secret – permit recovery of “actual damages” where those can be ascertained. What are your first steps when instructed to calculate damages from these infringements?
First, it is important to ascertain the type of infringement and thus the legal theory and acceptable approaches to calculating damages. Next, apply the models and calculations associated with the legal theory of damages and accepted methodology for the particular infringement. For example, the lost profits, profit disgorgement, market, cost, or relief from royalties’ approaches may be more applicable for a particular type of IP infringement.
What considerations are made when valuing damages from the theft of trade secrets?
When it comes to calculating damages resulting from IP infringements, some damages may be “unobservable” or indirect and therefore difficult to identify and quantify. What are some examples of indirect damages and how do you work around the difficulties that valuing them may pose?
This really depends on the approaches used to calculate damages. Under the cost approach, all costs associated with the development of the IP are observable to a great extent, but this might not yield the most accurate measure of damages.
However, when calculating damages using the lost profits approach or profit disgorgement approach, the expert would need to estimate sales lost (or gained by the infringer) as a result of the infringement. These lost future sales are not observable but could be accurately estimated.
The workaround for this issue would be to use observable historical sales and economic conditions post infringement to extrapolate via regression analysis, or other techniques to calculate what unobservable future lost sales would have been but-for the infringement.
In other words, the workaround would be to use observable data and trends to derive or estimate the unobservable data needed to calculate damages.
What are common misconceptions do clients sometimes have when trying to value damages in instances like these?
Some clients can be biased in terms of their desire to use an approach that will lead to the highest (for plaintiff clients) or lowest (for defendant clients) damages. However, it is important for both defendants and plaintiffs to understand that only the most acceptable, accurate, and economically reasonable approach and calculation of damages will ultimately be successful.
What types of economic damages do theft of trade secrets result in?
The following may overlap to some degree, but are the general categories of damages are:
Don May PhD
Managing Partner
DMA Economics, LLC
212.390.0595 I Cell 914.473.3601
dmay@dmaeconomics.com | dmaeconomics.com
DMA Economics works on behalf of plaintiffs and defendants to calculate damages in high-stakes commercial litigation. Some examples of damage calculations relate to securities fraud, product defects, theft of trade secrets, and portfolio mismanagement to name just a few.
DMA Economics is a leader in providing damage calculations using rigorous analyses that are clearly communicated to triers-of-fact.
What are the new trends in cases in your area of expertise?
The actions of law enforcement have been closely examined for decades. However, most recently, law enforcement agencies have come under intense scrutiny for their actions and how those actions are carried out. Body-worn cameras have emerged over the past decade as an industry standard to facilitate transparency within the policing culture. Crisis intervention training, mental health first aid, use of force, cultural diversity, unconscious bias training, and advanced officer training are hot button topics in law enforcement. Integrity in policing, specifically individual police officers’ integrity, has become focal points in the law enforcement industry and has impacted most police agencies’ recruitment and retention policies.
What types of continuing education do you participate in to stay up to date with developments in your field?
Having recently retired in mid-2020, I’ve stayed up to date with advanced training, policy matters, accreditation processes, and case law impacting law enforcement. I am a member of the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) and have been a presenter at the IACP annual conference for three consecutive years. I am also a member of the FBI National Academy Associates, being a graduate of the FBI National Academy Session 267. I am also currently pursuing a PhD in Criminal Justice Leadership.
What developments have taken place in the last 12 months that impact how cases in your area of expertise should be handled?
Over the past year, several high profile incidents have occurred throughout the United States that require a clear understanding of law enforcement training, policies, procedures, and overall police culture. Use of force, de-escalation training, cultural sensitivity, and equality have come under the news media’s watchful eye and the general public. Social media has impacted how police officers perform their duties, and often the public opinion weighs heavily in a case. A law enforcement standard of care expert should understand both sides of an issue and articulate what steps could, or should, have been taken when the high profile incident occurred.
How have recent changes in technology or regulations impacted cases in your area of expertise?
Technology is heavily relied upon by modern law enforcement entities. The use of body-worn cameras, cloud-based report writing systems, social media, smartphones, etc., are all technology-driven devices that allow for transparency and discovery of police officers’ actions. Proper training and good policies and procedures must be in place for the proper discovery of these topics.
Evidence Solutions
866.795.7166
ClientServices@EvidenceSolutions.com
www.evidencesolutions.com
Evidence Solutions' expert witnesses provide consulting in digital forensics, auto and truck accidents, accident reconstruction, EDR forensics, sports injury, police standards and policies, CMV standards, Greek fraternity issues, product failure analysis, and medical record recovery and analysis. No matter how complex the case, we can help you discover what happened and present it in a way that everyone can understand – Evidence in Plain English! Our goal at ESI is to help our clients obtain, understand, and utilize all the data and information available to them. We can analyse cell phones, computers, hard drives, EDRs, reconstruct accidents, provide trucking standard of care consulting, recover digital data, and provide expert witness testimony in our many areas of expertise. Our experts can help you understand what needs to be done, what should have been done, and what to do next. Call us today so we can help you!
What are the new trends in cases in your area of expertise?
More and more cases are demanding exact location data. I believe there are increasingly more evidence items that are not device specific and are stored in the cloud.
Devices are becoming smaller while the amount of storage they contain becomes larger. So, the amount of data that is analysed in digital forensics cases is much larger than it was just five years ago.
In addition to the cases where we analyse the contents of cell phones, we also cover cell phone triangulation cases. As 5G rolls out and becomes common, the location of a cell phone based upon tower information should become more precise.
The trends in automobile electronics allow us to capture much more data from vehicles, as well. The GPS data and all of the logs in a vehicle are astounding.
What types of continuing education do you participate in to stay up to date with developments in your field?
This is mostly covered via classes, webinars, lab work/research and articles.
Our digital forensics team is constantly reading and attending both online and in-person educational events. In addition, we are also doing our own testing and creating solutions in our own lab. So, Evidence Solutions, Inc. is creating products and methods that are used as solutions to Digital Forensics problems; we develop these solutions by constant experimentation.
What developments have taken place in the last 12 months that impact how cases in your area of expertise should be handled?
There have been developments in the area of higher encryption and passwords on data. Devices are getting better at hiding their system data and we are getting better at finding it. There is no substitute for experience!
How have recent changes in technology or regulations impacted cases in your area of expertise?
The size of cellphone internal storage has impacted the time it takes to image a phone. I think there has also been more emphasis on privacy. We have to be careful we aren't looking at things we should not be seeing.
Evidence Solutions
866.795.7166
ClientServices@EvidenceSolutions.com
www.evidencesolutions.com
Evidence Solutions' expert witnesses provide consulting in digital forensics, auto and truck accidents, accident reconstruction, EDR forensics, sports injury, police standards and policies, CMV standards, Greek fraternity issues, product failure analysis, and medical record recovery and analysis. No matter how complex the case, we can help you discover what happened and present it in a way that everyone can understand – Evidence in Plain English! Our goal at ESI is to help our clients obtain, understand, and utilize all the data and information available to them. We can analyse cell phones, computers, hard drives, EDRs, reconstruct accidents, provide trucking standard of care consulting, recover digital data, and provide expert witness testimony in our many areas of expertise. Our experts can help you understand what needs to be done, what should have been done, and what to do next. Call us today so we can help you!
Some have unfortunately been subject to domestic abuse along the way and others have struggled to finalise their divorce proceedings with courts shutting down.
Speaking to Barbara Read-Greenan she briefly outlines common child welfare issues and how separated parents can come to an agreement on issues involving custody, property and assets, and, with the pandemic rising issues around vaccinations, child vaccines.
How common are issues regarding child welfare in your jurisdiction?
Family law is divided into 'child protection' issues which are governed by the Child Family and Community Services Act and investigated by social workers in the employment of the Ministry of Child and Family Development, regarding issues pertaining to the location of parenting and responsibilities falling under the purview of the Family Law Act. Both types of issues are very common.
Have you seen any trends or fluctuations over the past year in this area?
In my experience, the past year has heralded a spike in family law disputes. Many of my clients have reported having taken stock of their relationships in a post-COVID world where, under the restrictions of shelter in place orders and the financial restrictions accompanying that, the weaknesses in the foundations of relationships have been laid bare to many.
With COVID vaccinations being rolled out, is it important that both parents agree on child vaccination?
The issue of who is entitled to make the parenting decision respecting the commitment to the vaccination programs flows from the assignation of guardianship and allocation of parenting responsibilities. If both parents are guardians, and there is no restriction pertaining to the exercise of their parenting responsibilities, the default position will be that both parents must agree to vaccination, under the auspices of the Family Law Act.
If parents cannot agree on an important issue in relation to the child's welfare (such as the above), under what Act can they raise issues with the Court?
The Family Law Act governs family law disputes which do not have an element of 'child protection concerns' as defined by the CFCSA.
In your experience, what is the best way to resolve such disputes?
Wherever possible, alternative dispute resolution is beyond compare as a means of resolving a family law dispute. Negotiation and mediation both loan themselves to assisting parties in fashioning their own solutions to the often-vexed issue of dividing property and time with children. If litigation, and the attendant 'war of the affidavits', can be avoided I find this places parties in the best possible position to effectively co-parent subsequent to separation and where relevant, divorce.
How will the Court intervene to resolve the issue? What do they look at?
This is too broad a question to be answered in the hypothetical. The resolution of family law disputes depends on a variety of principles revolving around the best interests of the child or children where parenting is contested, and the equitable division of property where property disputes are all that is at issue. Support issues are dealt with under differing principles depending on whether the question is a child or spousal support.
How do you come to the conclusion on what is in the best interest for the child?
By a careful presentation of evidence that is both relevant and material to that concept as defined in s.37 of the Family Law Act.
About Barbara:
What has been your biggest achievement in the past 12 months?
Adapting my practice to safely and efficiently assist people post-Pandemic.
Do you have a mantra or motto you live by when it comes to helping your clients?
We at Read Greenan Law Group are dedicated to serving our clientele with compassion, integrity and efficiency.
Barbara Read-Greenan
Family Law Lawyer & Mediator
03 - 255 Ingram Street, Duncan, BC
www.readgreenanlaw.com
Barbara was called to the Bar of British Columbia 20 years ago, and the High Court of New Zealand, 18 years ago. Currently, she is practising exclusively in Canada as a family law lawyer and mediator, and she also accepts criminal instruction. A retired contractor to the Attorney General commissioned to act on behalf of the Ministry of Child and Family Development, Barbara is familiar with all aspects of Family Law including allocation of parenting time and responsibilities, analysis of support obligations, and the division of family debts and property. Barbara is experienced at drafting agreements, engaging in alternative dispute resolution processes, and litigation. The foundation of her practice is compassion, integrity and efficiency. She appreciates her clients require her assistance during what is for most of them one of the most trying, and costly, periods of their lives, with their primary assets at risk and their children caught in the fray. She endeavours to ensure her client experience as smooth and straightforward a transition from married to single life, removing complexities, making the shift as effortless as possible for her clients.
