Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
While technically 6MLD won’t apply to the UK being outside of the EU, the truth is that as a major global financial centre, the City of London will be compliant with these regulations. Quite simply, they still want to do business with the EU of course, which means all regulated businesses need to be compliant.
We may be an island with a narrow stretch of the channel separating us from continental Europe, but of course, for centuries we have done business with Europe and will want to continue to do that post-Brexit.
Over recent decades the UK has established itself as a global leader in financial services and we will not want to lose that position as we move forward in search of new trade deals. That means being ‘whiter than white’ when it comes to regulation.
The fact is, we are strides ahead regarding the implementation of EU directives for money laundering regulation, and much of the ground covered by 6MLD has already been adopted by UK businesses. That is perhaps no surprise if you consider the UK is the most heavily regulated country in the world.
But even though leaving the EU doesn’t mean leaving as much regulation behind as we thought, the Government has made an important step towards making compliance a lot simpler for regulated businesses.
As part of the legislation governing the departure from the trading bloc, the UK government has stipulated that electronic verification should be used, enabling businesses to move away from manual, document-based checks.
The Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 has now clarified the position on electronic verification, which is the most effective way for businesses to ensure compliance with all the latest legislation, both in the UK and EU.
We are not only entering a new era of life outside of the EU but also a new era of EV, and this is the year to make the switch.
In fact, the Legal Sector Affinity Group (LSAG) has just announced the results of its extensive revision of anti-money laundering guidance. In this, they refer to the Brexit legislation which is a welcome move in terms of bringing the sector up to date with the latest technological solutions.
The conveyancing sector for example plays such a vital role in protecting against the threat of money-laundering in the property market, which is a prime target for criminal exploitation.
The legal profession must take this opportunity to move to electronic verification when onboarding new customers and clients. For some time now it has been clear that documents are dead and the only way to be sure is to switch 100% to electronic verification.
There is no longer any need to collect passports, driving licences and those kinds of documents to verify ID. For the vast majority of every day, legal work and conveyancing all that is required for ID verification is a name, address and a date of birth (optional). The online platform runs the details through a global data search to bring back results for an individual in less than two seconds, and for a business in about three minutes.
The latest technology combines credit reference data, biometric facial recognition, and digital fraud checks. At SmartSearch, for example, we incorporate CRA (credit reference agencies) data, electoral roll data and other reliable public data sources to establish identity.
By triple checking these different sources of information a unique ‘composite digital identity’ is produced that is virtually impossible to fake. All this can be done online, with no need for in-person meetings, face coverings or hard copies of documents.
What we urgently need to move away from, and this Brexit legislation allows us to do it, is practices such as asking new customers to send a photo of themselves with their passport in hand open at their photo page. Given the sophistication of forgeries today, it would be all too easy to exploit that kind of naive gap in security.
Electronic verification ensures compliance with Know Your Customer (KYC) and Know Your Business (KYB) legislation without having to handle a single document. It is also less intrusive for you and your client, as well as being 100% COVID-secure because you don’t need to meet face-to-face.
As we deal with this third wave of coronavirus, businesses need to act fast to make the switch. We are not only entering a new era of life outside of the EU but also a new era of EV, and this is the year to make the switch.
John Dobson is Founder and CEO of SmartSearch. Born in Rothwell, West Yorkshire, his early career was in IT and sales before starting his first company in the early 1980s. He has since established and run a series of highly successful businesses, twice winning the prestigious Queen’s Award for Enterprise, including with SmartSearch in 2018.
Financial technologies are an opportunity for Liechtenstein. What was the aim of the TVTG?
Continuous further development of innovation is necessary to ensure positive economic development. Due to the high level of regulation in the financial sector, however, this requires a corresponding commitment to innovation on the part of the government and the authorities. The TVTG defines a legal framework for all applications of the token economy to ensure legal certainty for many current and future business models. This should not only strengthen innovation, but also protect users from abuse and the reputation of the financial market of Liechtenstein as a whole.
The legal aspect of tokenized structures and assets was a major challenge for the legislator How so?
Technology is subject to constant change and blockchain technology, in particular, is affected by a high pace of innovation. It was therefore important for the legislator to find a solution that was as technology neutral as possible. The legislator, therefore, tried to abstractly define the term “Blockchain” as “Transaction on systems based on trustworthy technologies” and the term “trustworthy technology (TT)” is defined as “technologies through which the integrity of tokens, the clear assignment of tokens to TT Identifiers and the disposal over token is ensured”. With the Law on Token and TT-Service Provider (TVTG), coming into force on 1 January 2020, the legislator introduced the legal entity “token”, which was new to the Liechtenstein law. Due to this, certain fundamental legal issues with regard to tokens had to be clarified on the basis of existing law.
In the heart of the TVTG lies the “Token Container Model” (TCM) which enables a technologically neutral and agnostic token definition. In this model, what constitutes as a ‘token’?
The blockchain ecosystem revolves heavily around payment token, but a legal definition that revolves primarily around cryptocurrency cannot do justice to the application potential of the entire token economy. In order to cover as many possible applications of the token economy, the Liechtenstein legislator defined token as a “container” of a right. This right can include everything that is used in the legal and economic system, such as the right of ownership of an object, the right to receive goods (vouchers), the rights of use (of all kinds), membership and much more. Even the case of an “empty” container is possible and relevant in practice (e.g., cryptocurrency without real value-collateralization, such as bitcoin). Consequently, this means that the token only digitally represents the rights in the blockchain system. The original right and all the associated legal consequences remain intact. Thus, the legislator did not have to draft new laws regarding individual rights, but only regarding the transfer of the token, respectively of the right by means of the blockchain, as well as regarding the connection between the physical and online world.
The introduction of balanced regulation is intended to maintain the sector's ability to innovate, while at the same time providing a certain legal framework for customer protection, prevention of money laundering and protection of the financial market, which will also increase the quality of the FinTech companies.
How does the TVTG bridge the gap between the physical and online world?
The TVTG states that the token is the disposition of the right represented (by the token). However, this legal basis only has a limited effect, since this can, of course, only apply to rights or things that are subject to Liechtenstein law. The law, therefore, imposes on the Token Generator the obligation to ensure by appropriate measures that the disposition of the token actually also results in the direct disposition of the right represented and that any other disposition of the right represented in the token is excluded. The law does not specify how this obligation should be fulfilled. It depends on the represented right. For example, in the case of tokenization of rights to an object, the object could be deposited in a warehouse. In the case of securities, it should generally be sufficient if the terms of the issue stipulate that the disposal of the security takes place in accordance with the rules of a VT system.
Moreover, the legislator has introduced the category of the Physical Validator as a person who ensures the enforcement of rights, in terms of property law, to goods represented in tokens on TT systems.
Who must register according to TVTG?
With the creation of the TVTG, ten new categories, which provide services on TT systems (e.g., blockchain), have been introduced. Pursuant to Art. 12 TVTG, natural or legal persons who have registered office or place of residence in Liechtenstein and who wish to provide one of the following services on a professional basis must register with the Financial Market Authority:
The TVTG makes it possible to bridge the gap between the classic financial industry and distributed ledger technology. What impact could this have?
In the traditional financial market, there is a high degree of regulation in terms of customer protection, prevention of money laundering and protection of the financial market as a whole, while FinTechs are generally not subject to any special regulation; this means that legal certainty for the companies suffers on the one hand, but also the protection of customers and the financial market can hardly be guaranteed. The introduction of balanced regulation is intended to maintain the sector's ability to innovate, while at the same time providing a certain legal framework for customer protection, prevention of money laundering and protection of the financial market, which will also increase the quality of the FinTech companies. The level of protection of the existing financial market law is not affected, as companies that are registered in the sense of the TVTG also require a license according to the classic financial market laws, if they want to provide services according to these laws (e.g. Banking or Insurance). The same applies to companies that already have a license under traditional financial market law and now want to offer services under the TVTG. They also require a TVTG registration in addition to the existing license.
This regulation thus bridges the gap between the traditional financial market and DLT, whereby companies from the traditional financial market increasingly seek cooperation with regulated companies from the DLT sector, since the regulation of these companies provides a certain degree of security, or these new services are offered by companies from the traditional financial markets themselves. By bridging the gap, the innovation of the financial market as a whole is increased without losing its seriousness.
What was the initial impact of TVTG on businesses?
As Liechtenstein was one of the first countries to regulate companies in the field of DLT, it suddenly became internationally known as an ideal location for companies and international inquires rose. Meanwhile, eleven companies are registered with the Financial Market Authority for different services according to TVTG. On the one hand, these include companies from the DLT sector, but also companies originally from the traditional financial market, which, as explained above, was also the intention of the legislator. Even though the hype surrounding DLT is still being felt, our law firm is now also receiving an increasing number of inquiries from companies that have a well-designed product where DLT is the solution to an actual problem.
If you have any questions regarding the TVTG or other topics of Liechtenstein law, the law firm Ospelt & Partner Attorneys at Law Ltd. will be pleased to assist you.
www.ospelt-law.li
info@ospelt-law.li
+423 236 19 19
I completed my Master’s degree in Law (M.A. HSG in Law) at the University of St. Gallen, Switzerland in 2017. During my studies, I worked for the Liechtenstein Financial Market Authority (FMA) and was thus able to gain firsthand insight into financial market law. Upon my graduation, I gained legal practice in Switzerland and Liechtenstein and passed the Swiss Bar Exam in 2018 and the Liechtenstein Bar Exam in 2020. Since 2018, I have been working for Ospelt & Partner Attorneys at Law Ltd. in Liechtenstein and advise clients mainly in the area of contract, corporate and financial market law.
Ospelt & Partner Attorneys at Law Ltd. is a law firm in Liechtenstein and offers comprehensive advice in all areas of law. Due to the different backgrounds and experiences abroad, we are also not only able to provide information on Liechtenstein law but also to solve cross-border issues of our clients. Together with Legacon Trust Est. and Crowe Horwath Trust Ltd. we can offer comprehensive solutions for our clients.
Philip Turvey, executive director at Anglia Research, examines the issues facing probate genealogy in the UK and how it could be reformed.
The COVID-19 pandemic has emphasised the importance of acting transparently and ethically. Some sectors, such as the motoring industry, have used the pandemic to re-gain consumer trust and address the crisis in confidence by helping to manufacture ventilators for hospitals.
This effort has resulted in some fantastic PR for the likes of General Motors and Ford – but it’s certainly not PR for PR’s sake. These companies are part of the global effort to eradicate COVID-19, and their actions have forced them to take a step back and think about what is truly important.
With the vaccine rollout underway, the return to normality after the pandemic offers a chance to change an industry for good. Businesses can look to move past the morally dubious and unethical practices that were commonplace pre-COVID-19.
Probate genealogy is one industry that needs to reset post-pandemic.
Despite the importance of the practice – with one in three people dying without a will – the sector is awash with self-proclaimed heir hunters who often have little to no experience or training. These wannabe probate genealogists have overcharged beneficiaries and, to cut corners, they conduct minimal research and do not attempt to find all entitled relatives, perhaps because other family relations are harder to find.
With the vaccine rollout underway, the return to normality after the pandemic offers a chance to change an industry for good.
Similarly, our research has found that some ‘probate genealogists’ have made informal deals with local councils over high-value estates. This has stemmed from intensive marketing efforts by heir hunters to local authorities in which misleading information and quasi legal advice is given. In 2019, Anglia Research surveyed 350 local authorities across England and Wales and found that 57% of these local governing bodies were passing on information regarding estates exclusively to a sole heir hunting firm.
When local authorities provide heir hunters with exclusive leads, they don’t just encourage excessive fees, they also risk compromising the quality of the research. For instance, imagine that details of an estate worth hundreds of thousands is passed exclusively to an heir hunter who then locates beneficiaries. Who checks that these are actually correct? The Government Legal Department’s Bona Vacantia Division can’t, because any cases passed exclusively to a single heir hunter bypasses this process, and other probate genealogy firms can’t check the validity of the results because they don’t know about the case.
In short, the process allows corners to be cut and doesn’t reveal any mistakes made by inexperienced, unqualified heir hunters.
But how did this unethical practice emerge?
The popular TV series, Heir Hunters, certainly contributed to the boom in self-proclaimed probate genealogists by sensationalising the sector and glamourising certain aspects of the work. However, another factor that has contributed to transparency issues in the sector is the lack of statutory regulation. Unlike the banking sector, which is monitored by the Financial Conduct Authority, the probate genealogy sector is not formally regulated.
Membership to self-regulating bodies, such as the Association of Probate Researchers, which has an independent compensation and complaints scheme, is entirely voluntary. The body has no statutory power to enforce industry wide membership, nor can they punish any rogue actors within the sector.
[ymal]
The combination of untrained probate genealogists and a lack of regulatory authorities creates the perfect environment for underhand tactics to spread. Independent regulation and meaningful accreditation are practices we at Anglia Research have in place to guarantee transparency. These practices should be adopted industry-wide if we are to change the sector for good.
The end of the pandemic in the coming months gives the probate genealogy sector a chance to draw a line in the sand and adopt a more ethical, transparent way of working with clients.
As mentioned above, accreditation is one way to improve the probate genealogy sector. Recently we’ve seen companies claiming they’ve won industry awards – or even set up their own awards scheme, which of course they win – but it’s no longer enough to just pay lip service by subscribing to organisations and societies. Nor is it sufficient to only gain accreditation so you can put the symbol on your website or business card.
If probate genealogists are serious about following ethical practice, then they must abide by the industry body rules and show that they have the competence to comply and uphold best practice. Furthermore, local authorities must conduct due diligence and withhold from engaging in partnerships with unethical firms or those with bad reputations. To avoid failing a compliance audit they should follow government guidelines by referring all qualifying cases to the Government Legal Department’s Bona Vacantia Division. Local councils need to stop creating monopolies and facilitate peer assessment to help reform the sector.
Pre-COVID-19, probate genealogy was going down the wrong path. Inexperienced heir hunters were leaving beneficiaries short-changed. However, like most sectors, the pandemic has given us the chance to reset. If we can put the above steps in place, then we’ll start moving away from our unethical past and become a sector that operates in a way that matches the importance of our work.
TikTok parent company ByteDance has agreed to pay $92 million to settle a class-action lawsuit in the US after more than a year of litigation, according to documents filed in the US District Court in Illinois on Thursday.
The federal lawsuit alleged that TikTok failed to obtain US users’ consent prior to collecting data from them, violating Illinois biometric privacy law. Illinois is the only US state to have a law allowing people to seek monetary damages for unauthorised data collection.
Last February, Facebook agreed to a $550 million settlement under the same Illinois biometric privacy law. Privacy advocates have hailed the legislation as the US’s strongest form of protection against the improper use of biometric data.
The lawsuit claimed that TikTok gained access to user data using a “complex system of artificial intelligence” to recognise facial features in videos uploaded to the platform, as well as to recommend stickers and filters. The suit also alleged that algorithms were used to identify users’ age, gender and ethnicity, and that collected information was sent to China and shared with third parties without consent.
“While we disagree with the assertions, rather than go through lengthy litigation, we’d like to focus our efforts on building a safe and joyful experience for the TikTok community,” a spokesperson for TikTok said on Thursday.
The proposed settlement still requires court approval. If accepted, it would compel TikTok to compensate its users, take further measures to protect user data and launch a new “privacy compliance” training programme.
[ymal]
Separately, in Washington, the Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice are investigating allegations that TikTok failed to abide by a 2019 agreement intended to protect the privacy of minors.
Location: North West
Salary: c.£50,000 + generous bonus (see below)
Job type: Permanent
Job sector: Private Practice
Sector: Regulatory
Experience: PQE 3
Remote based – flexible working - c.£50,000 + generous bonus (see below)
Healthcare Counsel Ltd is a niche practice that advises health and social care providers about regulatory matters, often in the context of a crisis. Due to an increase in work recently, it is seeking an additional lawyer to join its principal.
Ideally, you will have experience of working as a healthcare regulatory lawyer. However, it is far more important that you:
Are calm, and calming, in a crisis.
Experience of one or more of the following is preferable but not essential - your application will be considered without directly relevant experience:
You will be advising care home groups and other health and social care providers about a broad range of regulatory and public law matters. This will often be in the context of a regulatory crisis, with clients facing enforcement action from a range of public authorities. Your cases may attract media attention and you will be comfortable working as part of a team that may include the client and other advisors such as consultants and PR advisors.
The role will involve working remotely and with complete flexibility subject only to meeting:
You will share in the success you bring to Healthcare Counsel. You will accordingly be paid 50% of any receipts above the 900 hours target.
To apply click here
Wrongful deaths are one of the most common causes of death today. CDC reports show that there were 173,040 unintentional deaths in 2020. An unintentional injury death can subject you to a double tragedy of both losing a loved one and landing an inexperienced wrongful death attorney. Hiring the right lawyer is the first step to winning your death suit. If you’re struggling to find such a lawyer, the following tips will help you make the best decision for you and your family.
Adequate research is essential when searching for the right person to handle your case. If you’re having a difficult time, don’t let grief impair your judgment. Investigate the backgrounds of the few attorneys in your area. Ask them if they’ve handled cases similar to yours, and check if they’re properly licensed. If possible, choose an attorney who specializes in wrongful death cases.
The best way to get the right attorney for your case is by asking questions regarding their expertise. Tailor your questions towards the following areas:
Before choosing a wrongful death lawyer, it’s important to check their standing. Are they members of the bar association? Check the local bar association website to see if the attorney you’re considering is a member. If they’re not, look for someone else. Lawyers with leadership roles are the most suitable to handle wrongful death cases. Being a leader means that the lawyer has a goodreputation and has earned the respect of other lawyers.
[ymal]
A good wrongful death attorney must possess good communication skills. Effective communication is a critical trait that can easily determine whether you win or lose a case. Hire a lawyer who listens to your concerns, understands your fears and answers your questions. Avoid any attorney who doesn’t return your calls promptly. Hiring such a lawyer is just the starting point of inevitable frustration.
Look for opinions from friends and family members. If one of them had a similar case to yours, ask them to refer you to the attorney who represented them. Alternatively, you can ask the lawyer you’re considering if they have any references. If they have you speak to some of their happy clients, consider hiring them. References always provide unbiased answers.
Wrongful death attorneys charge differently depending on the situation. Before you decide on whom to hire, compare their costs. Some lawyers are amenable to working on a contingency fee basis while others aren't.
Choose the wrongful death lawyer to represent your case wisely. These tips will help you find a lawyer with the best experience and clients’ interests in mind. A good lawyer will fight your wrongful death battle and help you win your case.
Syed Rahman, partner at financial crime specialists Rahman Ravelli, outlines why he expects more investigations into wrongdoing relating to COVID-19 loans – and the responsibilities facing businesses.
COVID-19 has now been the main news item for a solid year. So it was perhaps inevitable that the arrest of three financiers as part of an investigation into fraudulent coronavirus loans totalling £6 million would generate its own headlines.
Officers from the National Crime Agency’s (NCA’s) Complex Financial Crime Team apprehended the three men, then released them after searches and interviews and enquiries are continuing. While nothing has yet been proved, the NCA is believed to be looking into allegations relating to the use of false data and documents and trying to determine who – and how many – were actually involved in what went on.
At the time of writing, nobody has been charged with any offence in relation to the allegations. Decisions on whether to charge anybody will depend on how the NCA investigation progresses. But while we wait to see how this most newsworthy of NCA cases is concluded, it would be a huge surprise if we do not see many other similar ones commenced.
Even a senior NCA officer who was involved in the arrest of the three men has warned that the emergency COVID-19 schemes are being subjected to an “eye-watering” level of fraud. Coming from someone who is familiar with financial crime on a large scale, that is quite a comment. But even the briefest of glances at the statistics tends to back up the possibility that the assessment may be worryingly accurate.
Lending under the Bounce Back Loan (BBL) Scheme for small businesses rose to £44.74 billion as of January 24, from £43.54 billion in mid-December. Those who have had the time and opportunity to assess the movements of money involved have predicted that up to £26 billion could be lost, due to either defaults on the loans or through fraud.
[ymal]
Introduced in May 2020, the government’s loan scheme was devised to give small and medium-sized firms swift access to low-interest finance:
The conditions of a BBL scheme application are:
Given the immense sums of money involved, there will be many who saw the potential to make fraudulent gains, just as there is now an appetite among the authorities to investigate potential abuses of the scheme. It is a set of circumstances that makes it extremely likely that we will be reading about more arrests. The situation that has prompted the large-scale government lending is certainly unique. But the offences that those suspected of coronavirus loan fraud could be charged with were on the statute books long before any of us had ever heard of COVID-19. The Fraud Act 2006 contains a number of offences that may be relevant in relation to fraudulent applications for BBL. Section 2, which creates an offence of making false representations, and section 3, which creates an offence of fraud by abuse of position, are the most likely contenders.
Yet even if fraud was not the intention of businesses that have made a genuine mistake in making an incorrect claim, they may still face investigation. The UK government introduced the Finance Act 2020 in a bid to define the schemes and the support available to businesses during the pandemic. Schedule 16 of this act imposes a burden on businesses to notify HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) of any awards that have been wrongly claimed. It is important to note that these wrongly-awarded sums do not have to be fraudulent. Any business, therefore, that may have made a claim for a BBL in error could still face the full force of the law if HMRC is not notified of the wrongly-made claim.
The offences that those suspected of coronavirus loan fraud could be charged with were on the statute books long before any of us had ever heard of COVID-19.
It is vitally important that all businesses understand that if they have made applications under any of the schemes then there is the strong possibility that they could come under an unprecedented amount of scrutiny. Businesses have to review all their applications and ensure that any mistakes are rectified. If concerns are raised as a result of such reviews – or an investigation is commenced - those involved have to seek immediate legal advice from those with the relevant expertise.
Australia has passed a world-first law that will compel Google and Facebook to pay media companies for content on their platforms.
The News Media Bargaining Code makes Australia the first nation where the government is able to set the price tech companies pay domestic media for hosting content on their platforms if private negotiations break down.
The code was fiercely opposed by US tech giants, with Facebook blocking news content from Australian users on its platform in response to its passage through the lower house of Australia’s parliament.
Facebook has now said it will restore the visibility of these pages, as well as other government- and charity-run pages that were mistakenly blocked. Its reversal follows talks with the Australian government in which it was able to negotiate four key amendments to the new code.
Aside from encouraging tech companies and media organisations to negotiate payment deals between themselves, the New Media Bargaining Code will also compel Facebook and Google to invest tens of millions of dollars in local digital content to ensure access.
In a joint statement, Treasurer Josh Frydenberg and Communications Minister Paul Fletcher said the code will “ensure news media businesses are fairly remunerated for the content they generate, helping to sustain public interest journalism.”
[ymal]
Both the Australian government and the US tech giants the new code targets have claimed victory after the completion of negotiations. Among the amendments secured by Facebook si a provision that the government may release tech giants from arbitration if they are able to prove a “significant contribution” to the domestic news industry.
The media code’s signing into law has global significance as other governments weigh the feasibility of similar laws curbing the influence of tech giants in how media is distributed online. Lawmakers in Britain, Canada and the US have expressed interest in the progress of the new Australian legislation.
Simon Farthing, Commercial and Marketing Director at LexisNexis Enterprise Solutions, shows Lawyer Monthly how law firms can properly enhance their business using automation.
A recent survey of C-level executives and Heads of IT and Innovation shows that nearly 80% believe that of all their priorities, automation of business processes and workflows can deliver the greatest benefit to their firms. I wholeheartedly agree.
An opening word of caution: automation and workflow can have varied interpretations. For some they could be a set of simple linear steps for payment approval, for others a complex, multi-threaded legal process flow designed to drive hours out of a matter. So, a good starting point is answering these simple questions:
Without such clarity, you may find yourself with the wrong solution, insufficient resource to achieve the ambition and a lack of significant ROI.
Historically, legal process automation has been focused on taking transactional areas of work and using workflow to minimise human touchpoints. This has been as much due to work type specific cost pressures and restrictions as an exclusive technology fit. Now client expectations of greater efficiency, transparency and swifter turnaround have focused the spotlight on workflow even more.
Historically, legal process automation has been focused on taking transactional areas of work and using workflow to minimise human touchpoints.
Many technology providers will suggest you start your automation journey with something simple. A second word of caution: when selecting a target for automation, start with something difficult. Starting with a straightforward workflow in a lower volume department offers no guarantee of business efficiencies in more complex requirements later.
A mistake when automating processes is to create legal workflows focusing on how the firm typically delivers service – rather than building processes that reflect the way the clients demand that the firm works with them. This is important when selecting the type of workflow tool you need.
Clients are increasingly aware of what they want you from you. There might be common needs across clients such as for management information, targeted SLAs, charging expectations and collaboration objectives – but there will also be unique demands, which may be why they selected your firm in the first place. So, your options for approaching automation are:
Clients are increasingly aware of what they want you from you.
Understand the customer journey – end-to-end – to deliver the best outcomes in the most efficient manner. These outcomes must be more than legal process. For example, if you’re trying to help a client acquire a business, think about the things you need to consider. Say the answer is, “we need instant access to information”. When designing the workflow, you need to determine what’s the information that’s needed, how can it be made available at the point of need in the transaction and so on, right until you’re able to deliver the desired outcome to the client.
Ensure you have the right set of tools at your command so that you can customise those journeys for clients. A law firm wanted to expand its debt management portfolio, but realised that to win the business, they needed to be sharp and tight on costs. In preparation, they categorised the workflows involved in their customer journeys – common processes across all types of clients, and workflows that were unique for specific sub-categories of clients. Thereafter, what other adaptations would be required to win the new debt management portfolio? Within that portfolio, would there be further unique requirements of some of the clients? Finally, how could the current technology enable the firm to establish all these different types of workflows and yet glue the various components together to create a seamless work environment across the business?
In short, look for exceptions at every level and then use technology to build processes and workflows to reflect them. Come up to the highest denominator – i.e., what workflows can you reuse, what workflows do you need to build for a future platform that is suitable for the entire firm and finally, what is that 20% niche requirement that will make a substantial difference for the balance 80%?
[ymal]
Management information reporting is critical, but a common oversight is not to analyse and determine the data to report on when you’re building the processes. So, when reporting is required, lawyers end up stepping outside of their routine business processes to go to different systems to access the relevant reporting data. If you’re a litigation lawyer, having to record information around ‘reserve value’, key dates and changes in steps, it becomes a nuisance because this data isn’t part of your regular transaction process.
When creating workflows for automation, think about the elements that’ll require reporting on across the transaction journey. By doing so, data will be captured routinely as part of the natural workflow process. This is perhaps why often lawyers become disenfranchised by workflow – firms don’t take a client journey-led end-to-end approach.
Frequently, firms automate what they have already got – leaving them with an old process that has been digitised, not the ideal solution you desire. Remember that you are the master of the technology that your firm deploys – not the other way around. The technology must never take away your control. It must provide a flexible toolset that delivers real ROI on your ambitions.
During a hearing on the SolarWinds breach, which led to hackers compromising several government and business networks, the Senate Intelligence Committee raised the potential benefits of Congress mandating a notification requirement for victims of cyberattacks.
Both ranking members of the Senate Intelligence Committee – Chairman Mark Warner and Vice Chairman Marco Rubio – stated that Congress should consider enacting such a law. "We must improve the information sharing, of that there is no doubt, between the federal government and private sector,” Rubio said.
While testifying at the hearing, Microsoft President Brad Smith agreed that the government should impose a "notification obligation on entities in the private sector."
He acknowledged that a company asking to be regulated more tightly was unusual but told lawmakers: "I think it's the only way we are going to protect the country."
However, both Smith and FireEye CEO Kevin Mandia suggested that any future law of this kind draw a distinction between “notification” and “disclosure”, requiring victims to notify authorities after suffering cyberattacks likely to affect other consumers or companies, but not requiring the to disclose these incidents to the public until later, once more information has come to light.
"You can have threat data today and have your arms around the incident three months from now," Mandia said.
[ymal]
The historic SolarWinds breach was discovered in December by FireEye. The firm found that hackers, suspected of being Russian agents, hid malicious software inside security updates that SolarWinds sent out to as many as 18,000 of its client organisations between March and June, including the US Department of Homeland Security. Other government agencies and an unknown number of private companies were also affected.
Also testifying at the hearing on Tuesday were SolarWinds CEO Sudhakar Ramakrishna and CrowdStrike President and CEO George Kurtz. Ramakrishna did not provide new information on how many of SolarWinds’ clients were affected by the breach.
