Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
While working in an office is by no means the most dangerous work environment, it is a mistake to ignore the potential dangers and risks present in an office. If your employer is not diligent about providing a safe, clean, and tidy work environment and does not keep on top of potential hazards, they are putting you, your colleagues, and their business (if an employee takes legal action after an injury in the workplace) at risk. This article outlines the potential dangers to keep in mind when working in an office to help you stay safe and well, several of which are often ‘hidden’ or regarded as insignificant until it is too late.
Tripping, falling, or slipping
No one expects to trip or fall, but it is one of the most common causes of injuries sustained in the workplace. This is usually because offices are full of equipment, objects, steps, uneven flooring, and multiple types of flooring, i.e., carpeted areas immediately next to hard flooring. Keeping an office tidy is everyone’s responsibility to an extent, but if an employee trips or falls because an employer has been negligent or failed to maintain the premises, they can be held responsible. If you have been injured after falling, tripping, or slipping, you may be entitled to compensation, so it is essential to seek workplace injury advice from a legal professional.
Unhygienic conditions
Office workers are notorious for coming down with colds and the flu, and this is because when one person brings in germs they will travel from person to person very quickly. This leads to reduced productivity and increased absences. While it is almost impossible to prevent germs from entering the workplace, we can take steps to prevent the spread. For example, regular hand-washing and cleaning of surfaces, door handles, keyboards, and printers, etc., will reduce germ levels. It is important that your staff clear up after themselves as they often make a mess when using shared facilities, but professional cleaners should also be cleaning the office on a regular basis.
There has been a significant increase in the number of office workers working remotely, and this has been proven to reduce the number of sick days taken by employees. So, if you have a cold or illness that does not prevent you from being able to work but you want to avoid spreading your illness to others, try to work from home when possible.
Strains, injuries, and pains
Sitting at a desk and using a computer all day can lead to short and long-term problems for office workers. Without ergonomic and supportive chairs that can be adjusted to suit the height of the individual, as well as height adjustable desks, workers are at risk of developing injuries and strain due to poor posture or repetitive movements. Employers should ensure that they carry out a Display Screen Equipment Assessment and workstation check for each employee to assess their needs.
Back pain, for example, is one of the most common complaints that can cause people serious problems. Computer screens that are too dull or too bright can lead to headaches or vision problems over time.
Pregnancy is the beautiful starting point of a woman’s journey to motherhood. During those nine months, expectant mothers will undergo and experience several changes that will prepare them for their little ones' arrival. While it is important for them to be aware of the essential factors that will affect their pregnancy, they must also be informed of their maternity care rights.
Maternity care refers to the health services provided by the hospital, birthing center, medical professionals, or midwives during pregnancy and after delivery. If you are a soon-to-be mother, here are some crucial aspects you need to know about your rights during maternity care.
The right to quality health care in all maternity stages
From pregnancy until childbirth, all expectant mothers have the right to receive the highest caliber of maternity care from their chosen provider. Whether you decided to give birth in a hospital or a birth clinic, healthcare standards should be equal. Make sure that you are aware of all possible options within your area. You also have the right to choose your birth team, either a medical professional or a midwife. They should be skilled professionals and experienced in normal and complicated childbirth. If you feel the need to change your care provider, do so without hesitations. You are responsible for your welfare and your infant's, so exercise your rights and do not feel obligated to stay for the sake of others.
Your chosen birth provider should always utilize methods that have been proven safe and effective, and remember that you have the right to decline any procedures, treatments, drugs, or tests that can be harmful to you and your unborn child. Moreover, you have the right to obtain all information related to these methods or drugs, including the benefits, associated risks, and financial costs. Your maternity care provider should never carry out any procedures or provide medications without your consent. Patient confidentiality should be maintained at all times, and remember that you are entitled to your privacy.
The right to be treated with respect
All pregnant women have the right to receive maternity care that honors their cultural and religious background. Every culture and religion is different, and your maternity care provider should respect them. You should receive care without any prejudice or judgment. Communicate the acceptable procedures and traditions with your care provider on the onset of your pregnancy journey. If you feel discriminated at any point by your chosen care team, leave right away.
Pregnant women should also know their rights in the workplace. Remember that laws protect expectant mothers from pregnancy discrimination, so should your employer violate them or act discriminatorily, you need to seek legal assistance immediately.
Know your legal rights in childbirth
Several birth injuries could arise during childbirth, such as bone fractures, damage to the brain and cranial nerve, and abdominal injury. If a medical professional or a midwife failed to give the necessary treatment or action, they should be held accountable for their actions. As an expectant mother, you should know the regulations for midwives and medical professionals during childbearing and the necessary legal steps you need to take in the unfortunate event of malpractice.
Many pregnant women are not aware of their maternity care rights and frequently lose the opportunity to exercise them. We should do our best to ensure that they are appropriately informed of these privileges and the proper recourse if they are violated.
Medical professionals have recently discovered a link between the active ingredient in Zantac known as ranitidine and cancer. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reports that Zantac contains a cancer-causing chemical called N-nitrosodimethylamine, or NDMA. According to the FDA tests, Zantac products pose a risk to public health.
However, lawsuits against Sanofi, the manufacturer of Zantac, claim that the company and other defendants were aware of the dangers posed by NDMA in Zantac, but acted in bad faith and failed to warn the public about these risks. As a result, some users of the drug developed cancer. If you have developed Zantac-induced cancer, you are eligible to get compensation from the manufacturer of the drug.
Generally speaking, even though prescription as well as OTC drugs have to be tested and approved by the FDA before they’re released to the public, sometimes, some side-effects can appear years after the release of a drug. These side-effects must then be evaluated and added to the pamphlet. However, in some cases, potential side-effects can be too severe; in cases of cancer or product is eventually outlawed, which only happens after a major lawsuit case. Zantac is one of those drugs that are currently under investigation, but it’s still made available to the public and not everyone is aware of its potential carcinogenic risks, which usually happen after prolonged use. If you or someone you know has developed cancer from the use of Zantac or any other drug with the same active ingredient, read on to learn the facts on the connection between Zantac, NDNA, and cancer lawsuits.
According to different lawsuits and studies by medical professionals, the drugmakers were aware of the presence of NDMA in Zantac. There is a connection between ranitidine and NDMA formation when it makes contact with nitrite in the body. Ranitidine can also lead to the formation of NDMA if an individual ingests it with chlorine-treated drinking water. Despite all of the information indicating that Zantac posed a public health risk, Sanofi failed to issue a warning.
As a result, many lawsuits indicate that the drug manufacturer acted in bad faith and did not warn the public about the likely dangers of Zantac. Zantac has been linked to many different types of cancer. And apart from being a known carcinogen, Zantac can also lead to other issues like abdominal discomfort, headaches, nausea, and vomiting.
If you or a loved one has been diagnosed with Zantac-induced cancer, you are eligible to file a lawsuit to get compensation. If you want to file a Zantac lawsuit against the company involved, there are lawyers who specialize in wrongful death and personal injury cases who can help. Some lawyers have represented other clients in Zantac lawsuits, and they know the legal issues involved.
An experienced lawyer can help increase your chances of getting the fair compensation that you deserve. Sanofi was aware of the potential dangers of their product. However, they continued selling it, causing unprecedented harm to innocent people. If you’ve been harmed by Zantac, you can call a lawyer and get started with your lawsuit against the drugmaker. Because there’s already a lawsuit against Zantac, your attorney can help you reach others with the same experience; the more people join the lawsuit, the bigger the compensation they will individually receive. However, you should know that major lawsuits like this can last for years before you receive your needed monetary reward.
Sanofi was aware that their product was potentially cancer-causing, but they concealed the information from millions of people. As a result, the company continued to generate handsome profits from a defective drug. Over time, many people came forward claiming to have been affected by the medication they believed to cause cancer. This has resulted in more Zantac lawsuits as many individuals only realized later that the medication they took contributed to their diagnoses.
Companies that manufacture or sell defective products are liable for their actions, and they are often required to pay compensation to the victims. Product liability comes in different forms. It is not only limited to drugmakers, but can also involve other parties along the supply chain like the marketers, distributors, and retailers.
The damages in lawsuits that involve Zantac and cancer vary depending on the condition of the affected person. Often, the damages in product liability cases run into millions of dollars given the magnitude of the health issue caused by a medication or product. For instance, most cancers cannot be cured, and they cause permanent life-changing conditions. Therefore, a victim of Zantac-induced cancer could be entitled to substantial compensation..
The company responsible for offering a defective product can also be required to pay punitive damages to the state. The victim does not receive this money but it is intended to send a clear message to would-be offenders to follow the law when dealing with products that can impact the welfare of people in many ways. All organizations should comply with the safety standards set by regulatory bodies. This will help to ensure that they do not offer harmful products to consumers. However, in cases like this one, some companies deliberately offer products they know could cause harm to the users. As a result, these organizations can be required to pay punitive damages when product liability lawsuits are filed against them.
Research conducted by different medical professionals shows a connection between Zantac, NDMA, and cancer. Various studies indicate that the drug makers were aware of the presence of NDMA in Zantac, but they failed to warn consumers. As a result, many people fell victim to Zantac-induced cancers, and this has led to several lawsuits. When you or a loved one has been diagnosed with cancer after taking this particular drug, you are eligible to file a lawsuit to seek compensation for your condition.
Likewise, you need to hire a lawyer to handle your case. Product liability lawsuits are often complicated since they involve several parties. Therefore, a professional lawyer with experience in handling similar cases can help increase your chances of getting the compensation you deserve.
Everyone driving on the road needs a license to do that. Unfortunately, a driver's license does not always guarantee responsibility and safety on the road.
Driving around big trucks can be dangerous, as such, extra precautions must be taken when close to it. Though most truck accidents can be inescapable, it is important to drive safely because and minimize the risk of an accident.
Anyone driving on the highway needs to take more responsibility for driving safely and not become distracted by anything. Check out why you need to keep safe when driving around big trucks.
Large trucks have blind spots more than regular passenger vehicles and that can increase the chances of an accident. If you’re driving behind a truck, dim your lights to a standard low-level as you approach to avoid blinding the driver through their mirrors.
You should note that if you can’t see a truck’s side mirrors the driver cannot see you too. They’re not like passenger vehicles that have the luxury of rear-view mirrors and back windows that improves their visibility. You are in the danger zone if you cannot see your reflection in their mirror.
A truck’s blind spots are known as no-zones and they should be avoided as much as you can. Move ahead of the truck or slow down so the driver can see you from their side mirrors.
Big trucks, unlike the average vehicles, cannot accelerate quickly or maneuver as easily. Its driver is at high risk because they leave themselves a margin of error if an oncoming car suddenly appears on the horizon.
A worst-case scenario is the trucks and coming vehicles suffer a catastrophic head-on collision. This is why loading trucks poorly can eventually make traffic collisions more forceful and likely to result in severe or fatal injuries. A truck can also tip or rollover if the cargo’s weight is not properly distributed among its axles.
Truckers contend with demanding schedules that force them to spend long hours behind the wheel, often at odd hours. Many do not get enough sleep, and so they frequently feel very tired while driving. These stressors and challenges often lead truckers to engage in dangerous maneuvers and behaviors behind the wheel, and that leads to dangerous, deadly accidents.
Most trucks require a wide berth and an additional lane to make a turn, hence slowing down when their pointer is on is a good practice. This is a need to prevent any accident from occurring, or damage done to anyone’s property.
Give yourself more time and distance when driving in the rain behind a big truck. Developing a safe driving attitude is important when sharing the road with big trucks and it cannot be overemphasized. These safe practices can minimize the odds of being in an accident.
Solicitor - Personal Injury
Location:Leeds
Salary:30000 - 45000
Job type:Permanent
Job sector:Private Practice
Sector:Personal Injury
Experience:Any or N/A
Bond Turner is going through an extremely exciting period of growth, having just opened our 3rd office in another major city! We are part of the Anexo Group Plc and have fantastic opportunities available for ambitious individuals.
We are looking to further expand our RTA/Credit Hire team with a strong Solicitor/Litigator.
You will be based in our brand new stylish Leeds City Centre office, based on Park Square.
Main Duties:
- Assessing and advising on liability
- Devising strategies to resolve cases with the best possible outcome, collating evidence and identifying areas to investigate
- Dealing with disclosure
- Drafting witness statements
- Dealing with procedural issues
- Marshalling expert evidence
- Working with the wider team, ensuring a seamless and quality driven delivery of service to clients
- Liaising with Counsel and drafting instructions
- Setting cases efficiently
Requirements:
- A minimum of 24 months experience dealing with Part 8 and Part 7 claims
- Comfortable handling of a full caseload of RTA claims of varying stages to conclusion
- Knowledge of credit hire (desirable) or RTA Litigation (essential)
- The ability to risk assess cases
- Able to handle infant approvals
- Able to value claims for injury
- Experienced in using advanced case management systems such as Proclaim.
A market leading salary is on offer, apply to discuss further.
On top of a leading base salary, you can also take advantage of our highly lucrative, highly attainable bonus structure. Candidates can genuinely double their take home pay by reaching settlement targets. Apply to learn more about our bonus structure.
Office hours: Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm.
Candidates are currently being shortlisted and interviews arranged, please apply for immediate consideration.
Lawyer Monthly hears from Elliott Fellowes and Kate Gee of Signature Litigation as they examine the state of the cryptocurrency ecosystem and what is being done to tackle fraudulent activity within it.
Regulators and central banks may not like it, but Bitcoin’s recent trillion-dollar market valuation and Tesla's $1.5 billion investment in Bitcoin have made big headlines in 2021. As the biggest single investor by far, Elon Musk has joined a global army of Bitcoin holders which is now estimated at 30 million worldwide.
These investors have been attracted by Bitcoin’s sharp price rise and the accompanying blitz of media coverage about it. However, while Bitcoin may have been the first cryptocurrency (and is now the most famous and valuable), the use of others such as Ethereum, XRP and Litecoin is rapidly growing too. All of these are built on blockchain, or distributed ledger technology (DLT).
However, despite increased appetite to invest in cryptocurrencies and increasing institutional acceptance, such as JP Morgan’s newly announced “Cryptocurrency Exposure Basket”, cryptocurrencies are still regarded as highly volatile and controversial. This is in large part due to their opaque ownership structure, which is inherent in investments underpinned by DLT.
Governments and regulators are keen to support the use and expansion of DLT as it has many potential applications, including the secure sharing of medical data, cross-border payments, supply chain and logistics monitoring, real estate processing and voting mechanisms.
Central banks are also looking at future opportunities for digital currencies which they issue and regulate (CBDCs). The Bank for International Settlements and seven central banks have published a report laying out the key requirements for CBDCs, indicating that they consider that CBDCs have real potential to operate as an alternative to fiat (paper) currencies, which at present give these banks control over how much money is printed and in circulation.
Governments and regulators are keen to support the use and expansion of DLT.
However, there remains a lack of regulation in this space on a global level. Current regulatory powers are insufficient to control how crypto asset companies conduct their business and how cryptocurrencies are used in society, providing opportunities for misuse by fraudsters and criminals.
The lack of transparency is also a major concern. Without being subject to either government or central bank control, the US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen recently detailed the use of cryptocurrencies in both terrorist financing and money laundering. Meanwhile the president of the European Central Bank, Christine Lagarde, said that Bitcoin has been involved in “some interesting and totally reprehensible money laundering activity.” In the UK, there has been some reluctance to regulate crypto-assets in the same way as other jurisdictions (such a Gibraltar, which claimed to be the first jurisdiction to introduce a regulatory framework for DLT). However, the FCA's announcement that from 10 January 2021 all crypto-asset businesses carrying on activity in the UK must be registered indicates that change is coming.
Another principal concern is crypto fraud. Among the most high profile global crypto frauds to date are cryptocurrency Ponzi schemes, for example PlusToken (which defrauded investors out of approximately $2.9 billion via an exit scam) and WoToken (which operated a similar scheme, and netted over $1 billion for the fraudsters). Other forms of crypto fraud include hacking, unregulated or fake brokers and wholesale fraudulent crypto-currency exchange platforms. In 2020 in the UK alone, around £113 million was lost as a result of fraudulent cryptocurrency investments with a further £14.3 million lost in January 2021.
The English courts are seeing an increase in litigation involving cryptocurrencies, and this is a trend that we expect to continue. This requires the courts to deal with some novel legal issues. Usefully, the English courts have a range of interim and enforcement powers at their disposal, which they are deploying to assist claimants in recovering crypto-assets lost to fraud. For example, the High Court has followed the UK Jurisdiction Taskforce's statement that crypto-assets, including cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, are property, and has granted proprietary injunctions to prevent further dealing whilst proceedings are ongoing (see AA v Persons Unknown [2019] EWHC 3556 (Comm)).
[ymal]
Further, the Commercial Court in London recently heard its first initial coin offering (ICO) fraud case: Ion Science Limited & Duncan Johns v Persons Unknown unreported), 21 December 2020 (Commercial Court) ICO's are essentially the crypto-equivalent of IPOs, and in this case the fraudster induced the applicants to transfer Bitcoin in the belief that they were investing in legitimate crypto-assets. Again, the court held that crypto-assets were property under common law and granted proprietary injunctions in favour of the applicants.
The judgment is significant as the applicants required permission to serve out of the jurisdiction against persons unknown. The court found that the lex situs (i.e. where the property was located) was the place where the person or company owning the crypto-asset is domiciled.
Importantly in Ion Science, the Court also granted permission to serve disclosure orders (Bankers Trust orders) on two cryptocurrency exchanges through which the applicant's stolen Bitcoin had been traced. The decision marked a sea change from earlier authorities, as the exchanges in question were located outside of the jurisdiction of England and Wales. This decision, together with the powers of the court of England and Wales to order proprietary injunctions with respect to crypto-assets, makes the jurisdiction an attractive forum for potential claimants.
Market expectation is that the use of cryptocurrencies and crypto-assets will continue to grow. It is not hard to see that the increased trading and holding of crypto-assets will likely lead to more crypto-related disputes. Looking forward to the next decade, we anticipate that crypto-asset claims will dominate fraud litigation in the English courts.
Encouragingly, the English court is taking a proactive role in the global fight against cyber and cryptocurrency fraud. Its willingness to adapt its traditional weapons for use in this developing area demonstrates that it is an effective forum in which to bring actions involving crypto-assets. As ICO and crypto-related disputes continue to increase, so too will the use of interim injunctions to further factual investigations and to protect assets underpinning the litigation. The AA v Persons Unknown and Ion Science judgments are likely to act as a blueprint for future claims and, in a similar vein, we should expect to see more innovative use of weapons in the Court's toolkit against fraud.
Elliott Fellowes is a commercial and financial services litigation associate at Signature Litigation, specialising in fin-tech and crypto related litigation.
Kate Gee is a commercial litigation senior associate at Signature Litigation, with a special focus on civil fraud, asset-tracing and cryptocurrency litigation.
China has issued retaliatory sanctions again two prominent UK barristers and a leading set of commercial chambers.
Baroness Helena Kennedy QC, Sir Geoffrey Nice QC and Essex Court Chambers were among those accused by the Chinese government of “maliciously spreading lies and disinformation” about human rights abuses in Xinjiang province. The sanctions come days after the UK joined the US, EU and Canada in sanctioning Chinese officials for these abuses.
Kennedy is co-chair of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China alongside Ian Duncan Smith MP, who was also sanctioned, and Sir Geoffrey chairs the UK tribunal investigating allegations of genocide against Uighurs and other Muslims.
In February, members of Essex Court issued a legal opinion commissioned by The Global Legal Action Network, stating that there was a “credible case” that China’s actions against the Uighur Muslim minority population in Xinjiang “amounted to crimes against humanity and the crime of genocide”.
Justice Secretary Robert Buckland condemned the new sanctions in a tweet. “Chambers isn’t responsible for an opinion by one of its members; a lawyer shouldn’t be identified with the acts or views of the client, and the rule of law requires lawyers to be able to advise clients and give legal opinions without [foreign] governmental interference,” he wrote.
[ymal]
Derek Sweeting QC, Chair of the Bar Council, also condemned the move: “The Bar Council strongly condemns any threat against members of the Bar simply for doing their job. Sanctioning a chambers or any legal organisation because a member has given a legal opinion in accordance with their professional obligations is an attack on the rule of law.”
The sanctions also targeted UK politicians and a number of businesses, which have since had their products pulled from prominent Chinese eCommerce platforms.
Clare Fanner, founder of Law Firm Marketing Club, shares new research on clients' expectations and what law firms can do to build a stronger relationship with them.
Our latest research indicates that 90% of clients have positive emotions at the end of their legal matter (regardless of sector), but 44% have not heard from their law firm since the matter was completed.
If you create a customer experience that produces a happy and satisfied client, then why aren’t more law firms building on this to drive repeat business? On completion of a divorce or family issue, for example, why couldn’t you sell your client your other services – legal help with their conveyancing, wills or business needs?
However, what exactly constitutes a happy experience – and how can we ensure that we create the best overall satisfaction for our client so that they return to us again and again? The overarching view is that many law firms don’t really consider their clients as well as they should, and definitely aren’t keeping pace with the adoption of technology / customer service that other organisations serving their customer base have. McKinsey Global Institute conducted research which concluded that data-driven organisations, for example, are 23 times more likely to outperform their competitors in customer acquisition, 6.5 times as likely to retain the acquired customers, and 19 times as likely to be profitable.
And, if we take a brief look outside of the legal sector, there are many lessons lawyers can learn. Amazon, for example, is famous for its customer care and ranked as the most trusted online shopping site in America. The online retailer’s sales rose by 31% last year thanks to its world class customer relationship management strategy. Its strong customer focus and intelligent use of CRM software capturing customer data at the point of purchase revealing details of the customer ‘experience’ is integral to Amazon’s success. Their CRM strategy is in fact disarmingly simple: make it easy to use your online site, ensure your customers get their money’s worth, give them reasons to return, and provide the highest-quality and most efficient customer service you can.
If you create a customer experience that produces a happy and satisfied client, then why aren’t more law firms building on this to drive repeat business?
But how good are we really at listening to our clients and giving them what they want, so that they get that fantastic all-round customer experience that drives them to return?
In our research we asked over 600 people from across the UK with different backgrounds and experiences of dealing with law firms to identify what they really want, need and expect from a law firm. Some of the findings were particularly enlightening.
What predominantly transpired is the importance of using emotional intelligence to communicate and bond with your client, not something that law firms are always renowned for. Understanding how a client ‘feels’ is a crucial part of understanding what clients want, need and expect and is the key to law firms delivering for clients. We know that most legal services are purchased when people are in a heightened emotional state. Interestingly, 74% of clients have ‘negative’ emotions at the start of a legal matter (angry, anxious, helpless, nervous, scared, stressed, vulnerable), whilst – as already outlined earlier - 90% of clients have positive emotions at the end of their matter (happy, satisfied, thankful, relieved, delighted).
But are law firms paying enough attention to how clients feel at the outset of a matter and what they can do to ‘improve’ this for the client? Understanding the emotions that clients have, what is important to them and what they need should be reflected in the messaging, language and marketing communications that law firms are producing. Doing this will give those law firms a big advantage over their competition.
Understanding how a client ‘feels’ is a crucial part of understanding what clients want, need and expect and is the key to law firms delivering for clients.
And take note of this statistic: law firms with a strong EQ (as opposed to IQ) can charge 8% more per hour than their peers.
The most important things clients need from their lawyer and law firm are, ranked in order: Understanding of issues; Price; and Technical ability. There are also opportunities for law firms when it comes to service delivery. Clients want the direct contact details of their lawyer, for instance. Too many law firms and lawyers simply don’t provide this, and yet this is important to 84% of clients. In addition, 79% expect at least weekly updates on their matter and 69% expect a same-day response to their queries.
Law practices should also recognise the clear differences in expectations in some areas for different age groups. The younger generation (under 44 years old) want more ‘out of hours’ access to lawyers (e.g. in the evenings and at weekends) and found online / live chat appealing. Those over the age of 60, on the other hand, didn’t deem online chat particularly important and were more interested in meeting at a place of their choice (e.g. at their home),
Although the differences in expectations by work type and age are predictable, ignore them at your peril. The expectations of your clients are changing. There is a marked difference in expectations for things such as personal contact versus use of technology. You need to grow and develop your services and ensure you continue to meet the needs of clients through the ages.
[ymal]
Keeping in touch with clients is a topic very dear to most marketers’ hearts. And yet law firms generally aren’t very good at this – a combination of time, data, tools (e.g. having the right software) and know-how is required. When it comes to communicating with clients, law firms are missing a trick with only 26% of clients being contacted when a key date is approaching e.g. a lease renewal, contract clause or a re-mortgage date. Not only that, but – as mentioned earlier - 44% of clients have not heard from their law firms since the conclusion of their matter. And, only 17% of clients have heard from their law firm with information to help them understand how market factors such as COVID-19 and Brexit might affect them.
To conclude, the good news is that there are some massive opportunities here for law firms. It is no longer good enough to ignore what clients expect in terms of support, service and communication. There are no excuses, even with increased flexible and remote working, you must put your clients’ needs at the forefront. If you don’t, others will, and you will lose out. Just don’t let another one bite the dust.
TDR Capital is acquiring BPP University and its subsidiary legal educator, BPP Law School, from owner Vanta Education.
Upon completion of the deal, BPP will be run as a standalone company under its existing management team and remain headquartered in London. It will continue to run its legal courses, which attract around 80,000 students each year.
Graham Gaddes, CEO of BPP, hailed the news and praised TDR’s record of supporting management teams and investing in growth businesses. “This is a significant vote of confidence not only in our business and our management team, but also its strategy and the long-term future of UK higher education and professional training,” he said.
“We believe [TDR] will prove excellent partners for BPP and we are hugely excited by the opportunity to continue building on our successes and achievements across the whole business, helping thousands of professionals and employers achieve their respective goals.”
TDR partner Jon Rosen also spoke optimistically about the acquisition, stating that there were “compelling opportunities to build on [BPP’s] strengths in the face of growing demand for high-quality education courses and training programmes.”
Speculation of a deal began to circulate last week, though insider reports were not confirmed until Wednesday. The university was first put up for sale in June 2019, but was reportedly taken off the market six months later due to lack of interest.
[ymal]
TDR Capital is a London-based private equity giant with over €8 billion of committed capital and a stated interest in investing in and partnering with market-leading European businesses.
Vanta Education is a global education network owned by funds managed by Apollo Global Management and The Vistria Group. It acquired BPP in 2009 for $607 million.
Next to heart disease and cancer, medical errors are said to be the third major cause of death in the United States, an article published in CNBC.com stated in 2018. The article quoted an eight-year study conducted by Johns Hopkins, which also found out that an average of 250,000 patients die annually due to medical error.
In general terms, medical negligence covers situations where a healthcare practitioner fails to provide the appropriate medical treatment, falls short in performing the correct medical action, or administers inadequate medical treatment, leading to trauma, injuries, or, worse, death.
Contrary to popular notion, it takes more than a surgical mistake to take a medical professional to court. So, how does the law determine medical malpractice and what does a patient have to do in order to file a complaint? Find out below.
Not all forms of injuries or damages incurred from a medical treatment will qualify as medical malpractice. As such, establishing medical negligence is a daunting task, especially if you don’t have a medical malpractice attorney by your side. That being said, always talk to a lawyer before deciding whether or not to pursue the case.
The following components must be proven before the court:
Contrary to popular notion, it takes more than a surgical mistake to take a medical professional to court.
To prove beyond reasonable doubt that a patient suffered an illness or injury as a direct consequence of medical malpractice, testimonies from experts are critical, and so are comparisons to the type of care and attention provided to patients who suffered from the same illness. These vital steps make medical negligence cases time-consuming and complex.
Hence, there’s no one-size-fits-all approach when it comes to assessing medical errors. If you need help in determining whether your case qualifies, consult legal professionals who can provide you with a sound advice on the best course of action.
Lawsuits pertaining to medical negligence need to be assessed individually by a lawyer. However, these specific situations faced by patients may constitute malpractice on the part of medical practitioners:
Lawsuits pertaining to medical negligence need to be assessed individually by a lawyer.
As an expert, an attorney can assess the merits of your case and provide you with advice on how to proceed.
Expect the lawyer to review your case by asking for copies of pertinent documents, such as medical records, prescriptions, and doctor’s notes, among other documentary evidence. The legal professional will likewise conduct thorough interviews with the patient, family members, and whoever may be privy to the case. The attorney may also attempt to discover the potential causes of medical malpractice in your specific case.
Take note that seasoned attorneys will not push through with the case unless they believe that all the documentary evidence and testimonial interviews are deemed significant and actionable by a medical specialist.
Proving medical malpractice is time-hungry, stressful, and costs a lot of money. That being said, an honest apology from medical workers and the administration itself may help prevent future lawsuits.
Insurance companies likewise prefer to settle with the aggrieved party rather than go through expensive and usually long-term litigation. Insurance firms opt for pre-court settlements because this can help prevent them from paying hefty fines once a lawyer is involved.
[ymal]
Most people shy away from asking important questions about their health, prognosis, as well as planned treatment. But, with various medical information resources accessible these days, a more proactive approach is needed. Patients can speak up and ask questions about their health, armed with some knowledge on their particular medical condition.
This does not mean that patients should challenge every prognosis and declarations issued by physicians. Being proactive means speaking up if you think there’s something wrong and listening to what your body tells you. After all, you only have one life to live.
