Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
The Serious Fraud Office has had a good year, or so its advocates would suggest. In 2017, two deferred prosecution agreements made by the SFO with Rolls-Royce (£479.25m) and Tesco (£129m) delivered more than £600m in fines for the UK Treasury. The fact that no-one has yet gone to prison for the crimes committed by these companies, who both admitted their guilt, seems to have passed with little comment.
But the wealth of media coverage created by these two prominent prosecutions of high profile companies presents an entirely false picture of the UK’s wider battle against fraud. The simple truth is that there is more fraud and there are fewer convictions than in 2011, the year before David Green took over as SFO director. Data illustrating the full extent of the problem emerged over the summer as a result of much good work by the law firm, Pinsent Masons (Pinsents), which has done a public service in making the details available.
So what is the scale of fraud in Britain today? As a result of a Freedom of Information (FOI) request made by Pinsents, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) provided figures which showed a fall in 2016 in the number of white-collar crimes prosecuted in England and Wales. In the same year, there was a sharp spike in the number of white-collar crimes reported.
The MoJ data for 2016 showed that there were 8,304 prosecutions brought, down from 9,489 in the previous year – a decline of 12.5%. These prosecutions comprise offences including: bribery, corruption, fraud, computer fraud, false accounting and insider dealing. This decline is not a one-off, but part of a sustained trend with a decline every year since 2011 when the figure was 11,200. That means an overall decline of 26% in prosecutions over five years.
On the other side of the coin, there has been an even more shocking increase in the number of crimes reported to the police relating to fraud. The figures for 2016 show that there were 641,539 reports - up from 617,112 in 2015 and a massive jump from the 2011 figure of just 142,911 in 2011. An extraordinary jump of 350% in five years. This is in line with comparable figures for 2016 produced by the Crime Survey of England and Wales.
According to a recent National Audit Office report, fraud cost private sector businesses an estimated £144 billion last year and individuals £10bn. Combined, these figures put the £600m fines levied on Tesco and Rolls-Royce into perspective since they are more than 250 times that sum. They also raise doubts over the true efficacy of the SFO to investigate and prosecute white collar criminals.
While it is fair to say that the SFO only investigates serious fraud, bribery and corruption, it would also be fair to assume that this has increased along broadly the same trajectory as more general fraud. We do not know the detail because government data does not breakdown reported or prosecuted fraud figures by value.
One thing we do know for certain, and upon which all commentators are agreed - uncertainty over the SFO needs to end. The constant speculation about its fate has a long and turbulent history: the SFO’s future has been in doubt as far back as 2011, when Theresa May (then Home Secretary) first mooted its abolition. Under her watch as Prime Minister, disbanding the SFO was firmly promised in the 2017 Conservative Election manifesto.
But since the election, there has been no government statement about the agency, simply an uneasy stalemate with May on one side and the SFO’s cheerleaders on the other. As someone who prominently supports the SFO in his newspaper, the former Chancellor and now London Evening Standard editor George Osborne has reportedly said that he will not rest until Theresa May is “is chopped up in bags in my freezer”.
None of which does anything at all to serve the interests of justice. Fraudsters, especially serious ones, must be rubbing their hands with glee since most of them, according to government statistics stand very little chance of either being detected or prosecuted for their crimes. Plotted on a graph, a year-on-year pattern of dramatically increasing fraud figures and ever-dwindling prosecutions would point to only one conclusion: as a country, we do not take fraud anywhere seriously enough.
Dominic Carman is a freelance journalist, author and ghostwriter. He regularly contributes to national and legal publications, as well as executing bespoke projects for international law firms and investment banks.
Law firms face a massive customer relationship management challenge. Getting the right information to the right people is key if business development and marketing activities are to be successful. To address this issue, many law firms have invested in Customer Relationship Management (CRM) systems. But too often, these systems are just not delivering the expected benefits. The main reasons for this are that law firms are struggling with getting the right information into their CRM systems and keeping them up-to-date – and time pressured lawyers or support staff are simply failing record accurate information.
In fact, around three quarters of law firms have a CRM system, but only a third are actually using it. The overwhelming majority (93%) of respondents to Ackert’s January 2017 survey, ‘The State of CRM at Law Firms - A Market-Wide Study’ 1 estimated that less than a third (31%) of the lawyers at their firms actively use CRM – and a staggering 58% of respondents estimated that fewer than 5% of lawyers at their firms actively use them.
Delivering Usable Relationship Insight
If firms are dependent on client data, but less than a third of the lawyers are inputting data or recording data in a central repository, then there will not be a reliable source of information and the firm will lack any real intelligence that can be used for business insight. As a result, more often than not, lawyers do not have any usable relationship insight before they go into meetings with new or existing clients.
Law firms are fighting for a shrinking slice of the pie in an increasingly commoditised marketplace. Against this backdrop, the ability to understand clients and forecast future client requirements is of the upmost importance.
There are three steps to getting law firms to be smarter with their customer data collection and analysis. This includes:
CRM systems, if used correctly, can also be a goldmine of data about client activities. If partners can see information about the conferences and meetings that major clients have been attending and who else in the firm has been communicating with the client, they will be so much better briefed ahead of their next meeting.
Boosting Your Existing IT Investment
An effective CRM solution can be the source of data that underpins useful reports for lawyers, giving them competitive intelligent and actionable ideas in a format that they will use at the time they need it. However, the way in which many systems are set up is doomed to fail because they are not intuitive or a one-click task. If your current CRM solution does not do this, while it may not be necessary to refresh the solution, law firms may need to reboot their approach to it.
Innovative software tools that sit on top of existing CRM systems can cleverly address the firm's reliance on lawyers as data creators and enable law firms to disseminate useful business intelligence. For example, they can provide a pre-meeting briefing digest containing information about each individual, news about the client, related matters that are being worked on and the two or three latest events and meetings that the clients have attended. This kind of briefing can be far more effective than a 100-page end of month report. For prospecting, this can mean better tracking of changes in relationship strength with new contacts and intelligent assessment of which activities are likely to drive change. Smarter integration of relationship data into your marketing automation platform also means that CRM can become a revenue-generating solution, rather than an expensive white elephant.
About the Author:
Stewart Walchli is the co-founder of Introhive. Before co-founding Introhive worked as VP BlackBerry Messenger and Social Media. Stewart joined BlackBerry via the acquisition of Chalk Media where he served as CEO. Stewart has also worked as a technology investment banker for CIBC World Markets and began his career as Corporate Finance Specialist at KPMG.
Introhive is a relationship data science platform for CRM that helps law firms drive user adoption and consumption of CRM data. Relationship intelligence helps firms better leverage their relationships with clients and partners to drive more business. Visit www.introhive.com or follow on Twitter @Introhive or LinkedIn
References
1 http://info.ackertinc.com/crm-for-law-firms (registration required)
By Paul Lewis, an accredited specialist in the law of contested wills, trusts estates and probate, Shulmans LLP
In light of the recent case whereby an Australian man’s unsent text was accepted by the judge as his official will, Paul Lewis considers the case under English law.
In England, the law currently prevents an unsent text amounting to a valid will and it would be a step too far to interpret or rectify it, even where the testator’s intention was clear. Even if the formal statutory rules are relaxed in line with the Law Commission’s recently published consultation document on the Law of Wills, an unsent text that is both unsigned and unwitnessed could not be construed as a valid will.
The Law Commission recently considered ways of reforming the law to allow for ‘electronic wills’ to be accepted as a person’s final will. However, those attending the consultation event struggled to formulate a secure way for the testator to sign a digitally created unprinted document in front of two witnesses present at the same time who must also ‘sign’ in compliance with the Wills Act of 1837.
As part of the same consultation, The Law Commission also examined whether a judge could dispense with the formalities of making a will, if the intentions of the testator were clear. A recent example occurred in Marley v Rawlings [2014] UKSC 2 where a husband and wife signed each other’s wills by mistake, resulting in expensive litigation. It advanced as far as the Supreme Court before it was rectified by reference to a wider interpretation of the Administration of Justice Act 1982 S20, which was introduced some 35 years ago, with the intention of making it easier to validate a will and to make the law on wills more flexible.
In the case of Royal Society v Robinson [2015] EWHC 3442 (Ch) a testator sought to leave his UK assets to a charity, however these intended assets were held in Channel Islands and Isle of Man bank accounts, which are technically not part of the UK. The court followed Marley v Rawlings and decided that in all the circumstances the testator clearly intended those assets to go to the charity and adopted a wider interpretation of ‘UK’ to include the offshore accounts.
In Reading v Reading [2015] EWHC 946 (Ch) the court had to decide whether the words ‘issue of mine’ were intended to include the testators step children and applied a common-sense approach, stating it did.
In Vucicevic & Another v Aleksic & others [2017] EWHC 2335 (Ch) the court ruled in favour of a handwritten document by calling on expert graphologist and translator evidence to extract the true intention and meaning of the foreign testator from ambiguous and meaningless terms.
However, these cases are mainly about intention and rectifying obvious mistakes, not about side-stepping the formalities of making a will in the first place. Although, since Marley v Rawlins if both issues of validity and rectification appear, and are closely related, they can be considered together.
The only real exceptions to compliance with formality under English law apply to military personnel on active military service, so long as words of testamentary intent are used, and indirectly where ‘gifts are made in contemplation of death’. Nevertheless, a recent Court of Appeal decision (King v Chiltern Dog Rescue & others [2015] EWCA Civ 581) has virtually closed off the ‘deathbed gift’ avenue, except in the most extreme circumstances where death is imminent. The effect of such a gift is wide-open to abuse, as it can strip out the main asset in an estate, thereby defeating a formal will.
As a last resort, the Inheritance (Provisions for Family and Dependants) Act of 1975 allows judges to dispense with testamentary freedom and the intestacy rules. They have the power to reallocate estate assets to deserving children, spouses, those being maintained and more.
The Law Commission’s final recommendations will not do away with the formalities of making a will, but will probably recommend judges be given wider dispensing powers where the testator has made their intentions clear. However, if the overriding consideration, at the expense of formality becomes the testator’s wishes or intentions, then the courts will be overrun with challenges and expensive litigation.
////
Paul Lewis
Paul is a Senior Solicitor at Shulmans LLP in Leeds. He recently attended the Law Commissions Consultation Event on the Law of Wills and can be contacted on 0113 831 3858 or plewis@shulmans.co.uk.
Big data has infiltrated (and, for the most part, improved) almost every industry, but in the police force, it’s resulted in an unexpected consequence: an uptick in Injured on Duty (IOD) retaliation cases. At the Los Angeles Police Department, captains are grilled by their superiors every month and must explain data collected through a tracking system called CompStat. When the numbers show that too many officers have taken IOD leave or sick time, captains and supervisors get flack —and often retaliate against their officers as a result.
“IOD retaliation lawsuits were almost nonexistent 10 years ago, before the LAPD relied on CompStat to review its captains and supervisors. Now, officers are being punished for taking time they’re entitled to, and they’re taking legal action,” said Matthew McNicholas, Partner at McNicholas & McNicholas, a Los Angeles-based plaintiff’s trial law firm. “These type of retaliation lawsuits account for 30% of the cases I see now.”
He discusses in more detail to why IOD cases have increased and why CompStat is part of the reason behind this increase.
What do you think are common reasons to why IOD cases have increased over the past ten years?
Two reasons. First, the volume of IOD cases has increased because of the workplace stress created by management when dealing with internal employment issues. This leads to legal actions such as those I handle. Second, the duration of the IOD cases has increased for the same reasons. The moral is so low that it affects the health of the employees and their ability to recover.
What employment rights are people in high-pressured job roles often unaware about?
Within the LAPD, the answer is none. There is extensive training on employee rights under department policy and state law. Remember also, this is a “promote from within” organisation. When you become Captain, you’ve been in the lower ranks for the previous 10-20 years. So, you have had the training as the person protected by the rights as well. This leads to a conclusion that they often don’t really care.
What do you think should be the first course of action for officers that are considering seeking legal action?
Contacting their union to see if the issue can be worked out internally. If that does not succeed, meet with a lawyer that explains both the potential positives and perils of litigation. Employment litigation is very difficult on the employee. Before I will ever accept a case and recommend full-blown litigation, I make sure the client understands all the negatives first. More often than not, I tell potential clients that while they have a proper legal claim, it’s not worth it to their health or their family.
Why are high-pressure environments that emphasize strict quotas and goals breeding grounds for retaliation and employment lawsuits?
The goals and quotas are measures by which the managers are being evaluated. They need to make their numbers. When they fail to make their numbers, they face their own discipline. It is a top-down issue set by the entity at issue, whether you’re dealing with sales quotas or ticket quotas, it’s just that ticket quotas violate the law and led to bad things.
In what ways are big data software, such as CompStat, are the cause of such an increase of cases?
Things like CompStat allow, and actually cause, the LAPD to closely monitor stats that deal with crime, such as the number of burglaries, rapes, murders and assaults in a given month. Such data can be helpful when viewing long-term trends in society. However, what motivates murder, for instance, is not in the control of the police department. If murders go up 100% from one month to the next, it is not because the police did something wrong. Such crimes are driven by social issues beyond police control, like a flair-up in friction between opposing gangs. Thus, the existence of such stats wrongly leads police departments to think they can change crime through different actions. Further, CompStat includes data on the sick time people use and the time people are off for injuries. This is also data that causes the department to think they can change behaviour through actions – and what they do is clamp down on people who are sick and injured. This leads to a myriad of violations and lawsuits.
In what other ways have CompStat and other data-tracking tools impacted workplaces and employment law?
To use medicine as an example, doctors always say, “You don’t treat the test result, you treat the patient.” Meaning, just because a test indicates something doesn’t dictate, by itself, the course of treatment. You have to take the patient as a whole. So, when business relies too heavily on the data, i.e., the test results, they are not working with the employees, they are “treating” the data results. This leads to poor working environments and lawsuits.
Can you think of changes to regulations Los Angeles could make to ensure problems that data-tracking tools are reduced?
The change would not come from regulations, but rather, through an entire change of mindset. When the Captains go to CompStat and have to answer questions about why crimes have gone up, they are also required to answer questions about why injuries and illnesses have gone up, and then instructed to lower such things. Well, such a directive leads to violations of law because the Captains go back to their divisions and crack-down on illnesses as if they were crimes. This is the incentive system set-up by the LAPD, and is a recipe for disaster.
From your experience, do you think those working in the police departments are taken seriously, in regard to their employment rights during on duty injuries? Do these perceptions differ if the injury was a mental health issue, rather than physical?
I think management often times places the mission over the safety and condition of the officers, and simply expects the officers to work through whatever problems they have, physical or mental. This leads not only to employee degradation, but a degradation of the quality of enforcement as well.
Matthew S. McNicholas is a partner with McNicholas & McNicholas, LLP in Los Angeles and represents victims in a range of areas, including catastrophic injury, wrongful death and product liability. Mr. McNicholas also has an emphasis in representing police officers and firefighters in discrimination, harassment and whistleblower matters. He can be reached at 310-474-1582 or msm@mcnicholaslaw.com.
This month was World Mental Health Day. Here, Richard Martin, former city employment lawyer, discusses how legal firms can address mental health in the workplace.
The American Bar Association has recently published a ground-breaking report on the importance of mental health, and awareness of it, among the US legal profession. The report, available here - followed on from research into mental illness and substance abuse across the legal profession in the US. It sets out in very simple, undeniable terms, the need for action and seeks to build a consensus for that action across every part of the legal community, lawyers, law firms, lawyer assistance programmes, law schools, the judiciary, legal insurers and regulators, highlighting to each their interest, and the role they can play, in supporting lawyer wellbeing. Finally, it makes the case that being well is essential to being able to perform the role of lawyer, that it is part of a lawyer's ethical duty of competence.
To quote from the introduction to the report:
"This report makes a compelling case that the legal profession is at a crossroads. Our current course, one involving widespread disregard for lawyer well-being and its effects, is not sustainable.... Our members suffer at alarming rates from conditions that impair our ability to function at levels compatible with high ethical standards and public expectations. Depression, anxiety, chronic stress, burnout, and substance use disorders exceed those of many other professions. We have ignored this state of affairs long enough....As a profession, we have the capacity to face these challenges and create a better future for our lawyers that is sustainable. We can do so - not in spite of- but in pursuit of the highest professional standards, business practices and ethical ideals."
This is of course the US. The only likely difference between there and the UK, however, is that the US is acknowledging the issue and doing something about it, with several state bars now making mental health awareness training a compulsory part of a lawyer’s CPD.
In the UK, there is a developing awareness of the importance of this issue, but we are yet to go anywhere near as far as the US. Mental illness is probably the greatest health and safety risk to lawyers. Were we any other profession, our firms would not be allowed to operate without mandatory training and appropriate measures to address and reduce this risk. So, what could firms be doing?
The starting point needs to be giving everyone the information, language and permission to talk about this issue, to talk about how we are. This involves awareness raising training for everyone. Managers – partners and others with people responsibility – should then be given additional training to be able to engage with their teams and talk about how people are coping and what can be done for those struggling. Stress is the key risk. Stress is the perception that the demands upon us exceed our resources – stress is something that exists in our brains, it is not necessarily the truth of a situation. As we become more pressured, more stressed, we lose perspective and the demands start seeming ever weightier, time critical, time consuming and threatening in terms of the consequences of failure. At the same time, we lose confidence in our own ability (resources) to meet these demands and, often critically, we lose sight of the others around us who could help too.
Managers are best placed to help people address those perceptions and training should be designed to equip then to do so, as well as support and signpost people who need more help.
Mental Health First Aid (MHFA) is an important part of the resources any organisation should have in place to support those in difficulty – all workplaces will have physical first aiders, this is about equipping a network of people throughout the organisation to play the same role for our mental health. For this year’s World Mental Health Day, to help enable employers to take a whole organisation approach to mental health, Mental Health First Aid England launched a ‘Workplace Wellbeing Toolkit’. It illustrates a strategic step-by-step process to achieve a mentally healthy workplace, providing a suite of resources to facilitate this.
Critically though, the conversation needs to go further. How do our organisations run? What are we doing to promote positive mental health, and to reduce the risks of our workplaces making people ill? It is all very well providing support to pick up the pieces. We would be making much more of a difference if we sought to avoid causing issues in the first place. This is a conversation which may well go to the heart of our cultures, systems, working practices and assumptions. It may not be an easy conversation, but it is one whose time has well and truly come.
Richard Martin works for byrne·dean, workplace facilitators and trainers whose mission is to create kinder, fairer, more productive workplaces. Richard spent 20 years as a city employment lawyer, serving as a partner at Jones Day and then Speechly Bircham, where he led the employment team and sat on the firm’s management committee. In 2011 he suffered a catastrophic mental breakdown, spent time in hospital and several years in recovery. As well as helping resolve conflict in the workplace Richard works with a range of clients to raise awareness around mental health and to develop cultures in which conversations about mental health can take place. He sits on the steering committee of the Lord Mayor of London’s This is Me in the City campaign to reduce the stigma around mental illness through personal story telling. He leads byrne∙dean’s work in this area, is an accredited Mental Health First Aid instructor and is also training with Meyler Campbell to be an executive coach.
Cybersecurity attacks are so commonplace that incidents regularly make front page news. They don’t discriminate either; cybercriminals target any sized company from every sector. Most alarmingly, these acts of crime are growing rapidly. Today, the Breach Level Index, which keeps count of lost or stolen data records, shows its breach counting as sitting at just over six billion records.
Law firms are a particular favourite for such cyber-criminals. PWC’s 25th Annual Law Firms Survey found that 73% of respondents suffered a security incident in 2016. Concerningly, these included all types of attacks from insider threats to phishing of login credentials and ransomware.
Law practices are tantalising targets for cyber-crooks as, by definition, they keep large amounts of extremely sensitive data for long periods. This makes them a sitting duck if their security systems aren’t up to scratch.
Do Legal Professionals Lag Behind When Adopting Cybersecurity Measures?
Traditionally law firms have been slow in adopting technology, but with cybersecurity becoming such a high-profile issue, this is changing.
Two major reasons for an increase in investment is the high level of cybersecurity incidents against law firms and the need to adhere with strict compliance regulations. Both these factors, along with risk management, were the top three issues to be identified in the International Legal Technology Association’s (ILTA) 2016 Tech Survey.
The Challenges of Cybersecurity for Legal Professionals
As mentioned, the challenges for law firms in mitigating security issues tend to revolve around their data given the sensitive nature of client information they hold.
The thing is, given the complexity of different cyber-attacks and the determination of cyber-criminals to get hold of the highly valuable data in their possession, a variety of different methods will be used to get hold of it.
In order to understand how the most robust measures can be put in place to prevent these attacks, it’s important to learn how cyber-crooks operate and where the problem areas are. The below outlines this in more detail:
Problem Area 1: Insider Threats
The pillaging of Mossack Fonesca’s database in 2016 bought this type of threat to mainstream prominence. 11 million documents exposing various offshore deals, were leaked by an employee, mainly showcasing alleged tax evasion by high profile individuals. The leaked papers were encrypted by the whistleblower and sent to reporters at a German newspaper.
Known as the ‘Panama Papers’, the case showed the ease with which sensitive data can be leaked and the chaos it can bring. It was an example of how difficult it can be to stop an insider who wants to release information either for revenge or financial gain. At a time when big money is paid for such sensitive data on the dark web, there is also a larger motive at stake for someone within a law firm to carry out such an attack.
In finance terms, there are also big repercussions for firms. The 2017 Insider Threat Report found that 53% of companies paid remediation costs of around $100,000 after an internal breach. Reputation damage is harder to quantify (just look at the fallout Mossack Fonesca faced) and its very likely that once a law firm is breached, it’s a steep curve to climb to win back client trust.
Problem Area 2: Keeping Up with Compliance
Modern day compliance is a minefield. In a survey by RedCentric of over 150 decision makers within law firms in the UK, one of the greatest challenges identified was adhering to regulatory compliance.
Data protection regulation exists in most developed countries. For example, the UK’s Data Protection Act (DPA) is a law that regulates how companies use personal data. Law firms must comply with the DPA and are subject to imprisonment and fines of up to £500,000 (around $630,000).
In the USA, data protection laws are somewhat mosaic in nature and applied on a state-by-state basis, but each dictates stringent rules around data security and privacy with associated punishment for non-compliance.
In Europe, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) will come into force next year and covers the security, privacy and control of personal data. Notably, and worryingly, PWC’s Law Firm Survey found just 13% of practices were prepared for GDPR.
Problem Area 3: Data Breach and The Value of Information
The 2016 American Bar Association Survey of 90,000 found that 25% of both small (10-49 lawyers) and large (500+ lawyers) law firms experienced security incidents. These incidents can have massive repercussions.
In March last year, two large New York based law firms experienced data breaches. Both firms specialised in patent and intellectual property law, pointing to hackers using the breached data for insider trading on the stock market. In the same month, 48 US law firms were specifically targeted by Russian cyber criminals looking for M&A activity to use for insider trading.
Attacks like this highlight the worrying ease with which such organisations can be targeted and how much turmoil can be created.
Solving Cybersecurity for Legal Firms
When you see the numbers associated with the costs of cybercrime you would be forgiven for believing the problem is insurmountable. However, despite the growing and very lucrative cyber-crime market, the security industry has been working hard to challenge these criminals by developing new and innovative technologies.
Despite this it’s important to remember that technology only goes so far to stop such attacks and should always be combined with a human element of caution and education. Here are some tips that should be followed in order to stay a step ahead and protect your firm from potential cyber-danger.
Solution One: Training and Security Awareness
One of the fundamental steps in ensuring that cybersecurity incidents are mitigated is ensuring all employees are ‘security aware’. It sounds simple but creating a security culture and providing security awareness training is included in a number of regulations, including the global cyber-security standard, ISO 27001. It’s also remarkable just how many businesses simply assume their staff won’t slip up in the face of a dodgy email or phone call.
Security awareness instils a sense of ‘security hygiene’ throughout a company and mitigates against any number of potential security issues – from phishing to browsing unsafe websites or becoming a victim of social engineering. Being aware of where you might get caught short can go a long way to preventing seemingly innocuous activities turning into a devastating breach that will cost a firm’s reputation and bottom line.
Solution Two: Dealing with Insider Threats
Not all insider threats are malicious. The majority of perpetrators are innocent and quite often open a gateway to a breach by clicking on something they shouldn’t. This can be prevented by some straightforward, ongoing security training.
When it comes to solving the problem of a malicious insider, it’s a far more complex game, especially at a law firm that provides rich pickings for someone intent of selling on proprietary data for revenge or a big pay-cheque.
To combat it is to understand threats and insider threats often follow a complex chain of events. A combination of both expected behaviour and more unusual actions can make spotting risky activities a complex and time-consuming issue to solve.
Using user and entity behaviour analytics (UEBA) technology can give firms far more insight into the network behaviour of users. Using machine learning, the technology gradually builds up a profile of ‘ordinary’ behaviour of the user - where and when they access data from, what files and systems they use regularly and if they download and remove information from the network.
This means that deviations from the norm such as late-night file access, the downloading of sensitive information and logging in from completely new devices can be flagged up, potentially alerting the firm to risky or anomalous behaviour before it would be possible for a human to spot it.
Getting an Absolute Discharge for Cybercrime Events
Law firms are prime targets in this new wave of organised crime with numerous methods used in order to get inside their firewalls. The resulting financial, reputational and ironically, legal damage, can often be hard to come back from – particularly for a small firm.
As cyber incidents from both sides of the fence continue to increase, law firms need to take positive action to contain the onslaught. Human beings will always push the boundaries, we can prevent those boundaries being broken using a combination of knowledge, education, training and state-of-the-art technology. If such methods aren’t adopted and cyber-security isn’t prioritised at board level, then it’s all the more likely more attacks targeted at law firms will continue in attempts to obtain the precious data they possess.
About ZoneFox
ZoneFox is a world-class security platform that effectively combats the growing issues of insider threats to organisations across multiple sectors. Through ground-breaking and sophisticated UEBA and machine learning, the technology delivers rapid, actionable insights around user behaviour and data flow, both on and off the network.
ZoneFox strengthens security posture and enables security teams to see where business critical data is going, who is accessing it and importantly who is doing things with it that they shouldn’t be – either accidentally or maliciously – quickly, easily and without impacting on endpoints or user privacy.
Based in Edinburgh, ZoneFox is headed up by Dr. Jamie Graves, a former PhD student at Edinburgh Napier university.
Professor Bill Ribbans, a Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon and Professor of Sports Medicine, works at The County Clinic in Northampton, which is a multi-disciplinary clinic specialising in sports injuries while still dealing with the whole spectrum of orthopaedic problems in patients of any age. In this article, he speaks on cases he sees as an expert witness and how certain sporting injuries require different considerations.
What are common cases that you are instructed on as an expert witness?
I have been undertaking expert witness reports since 1985. There is no doubt that the spectrum of cases I have been asked to provide opinions on has changed over that time from a preponderance of whiplash and lower back problems to more specialised areas corresponding with my main areas of clinical practice. As my area of specific expertise is in sports injuries, knees, ankles and feet, this has been the area where my opinions have been increasingly canvassed.
Why are these cases so common and what could be done by medical professionals to avoid them?
Injuries around the knee and the ankle are very common in the sporting population and the wider public. Injuries to the cartilage and ligaments in the knee and ligaments and tendon injuries around the foot and ankle form a high workload in all orthopaedic clinics. Increasing expertise amongst sports-related doctors, physiotherapists, and strength and conditioning coaches can reduce significantly such injuries by education and proper preparation for sport and exercise.
Are different considerations made for those with sporting injuries?
Having worked in the elite sporting field since 1981, I have come to appreciate that injuries sustained by sportsmen and sportswomen do, on occasion, need different consideration and management. This is particularly pertinent to athletes at the professional and elite level. There are certain injuries which may heal with protracted rest but that is not an acceptable option for professional sports people. Additionally, there can be injuries such as Achilles tendon ruptures which usually heal with conservative treatment but have a slightly increased risk of leaving the calf weaker than if surgical treatment is entertained. Naturally elite sports people wish to ensure the optimal recovery from injury to prolong sporting careers.
Can you share the most challenging part of devising an expert opinion?
The most challenging part of devising an expert opinion is making sure that all relevant information - notes and imaging - is assembled at the time of reaching your conclusions. Trying to re-consider an opinion when later information is forwarded breaks the continuity of your thought processes.
When advising claimants, particularly in cases of potential clinical negligence, I find difficulties if patients, who may have had many medical or surgical interventions, canvas multiple opinions. A number of these opinions can be given by clinicians who do not have the necessary specific expertise. However, their opinions are given significant weight by the patients - which can inflame an already difficult situation.
At what point would you recommend clients to take legal action?
I would always recommend that a patient and a clinician seek to meet and resolve concerns and issues through a face-to-face meeting initially. A second opinion is worth taking. However, it should be from a clinician with sufficient experience to provide meaningful advice. Although clinicians are usually reluctant to criticise colleagues, a second opinion can produce a management plan and some thoughts on whether previous treatments have fallen below an acceptable standard. In such cases legal action should be considered.
Have there been any changes in regulations over your years of practice, which has altered the way in which you work an orthopaedic practice?
During my career as an orthopaedic surgeon there have been numerous changes in practice. The most fundamental has been the change to sub-specialty interest. As a newly appointed consultant in 1991 most consultants undertook the entire range of orthopaedics including paediatric, adult and all sub-specialties including upper limb, lower limb and spine. Nowadays surgeons are more specialised adhering to the golfer, Gary Player, adage “the more I practice, the luckier I get”. There is undoubtedly an increasingly litigious mood amongst patients in Great Britain compared to thirty years ago. As a result, the importance of clear clinical notes, patient information and the consenting process for any interventions has all had to be carefully reviewed and updated. The increasing readiness of patients to seek legal re-dress and report surgeons to the GMC has had a massive impact on Indemnity Insurance premiums causing a number of my colleagues to abandon Private Medical Practice – especially in the sphere of Spinal Surgery. It has created a culture of defensive medicine which can prejudice patient selection for surgery and escalate health costs with “just in case” investigations.
Bill was appointed as an Orthopaedic Consultant Surgeon in 1991 to the Royal Free Hospital in London. In 1996, he returned to his home town to commence work at Northampton General Hospital. Bill entered into full-time Private Practice as Director of The County Clinic in 2011.
In 2005, he was appointed Visiting Professor in Surgical Sciences to the University of Northampton and to a full personal Chair in Sports Medicine in 2010. Bill is Medical Director of the Chris Moody Rehabilitation Centre at Moulton College since its inception.
“The focus of the insurance industry should be on culture (including tone at the top, conflicts of interest management, and remuneration practices), disclosure of information to clients (particularly in terms of the nature and extent of the disclosures and how these are presented to customers), product oversight and governance (specifically in relation to documented policies and procedures as well as the testing and ongoing review of same) and, finally, training and development at all levels, including the board of directors”, suggest Malcolm and Diane at Camilleri Preziosi Advocates.
They claim that these areas in insurance are likely to be high on the regulators’ agenda, both locally in Malta as well as at European level, and hence the insurance industry would do well to centre efforts on these matters in order to be able to withstand regulatory challenges, as well as contribute to the achievement of the underlying objectives of these regulatory regimes. They expand on this in their following interview.
Can you explain to our readers the relation between Malta and UK, in regard to the financial services? How does this relation enhance each jurisdiction?
Malta is part of the Commonwealth of Nations and although Malta gained its independence in 1964, Malta and the UK have maintained excellent relations in the political and economic spheres. This has facilitated the enhancement of bilateral ties and closeness in international fora, both within and beyond the capture of the European Union. The financial services industry is an important sector for both jurisdictions’ economies. Invariably, the UK has been the leading financial services hub in Europe and beyond; Malta, on the other hand, has established a thriving financial services industry which has benefitted the whole economy.
The UK’s decision to exit the EU poses certain challenges for both jurisdictions. The type of relationship that the UK will maintain with the EU post-Brexit is yet to be clarified, however there is little doubt that Malta is, and will remain, keen to maintain and enrich its strong connections with the UK. A Malta-UK Business Promotion Taskforce was set up recently, tasked with business promotion of Malta within the UK, with a focus on industrial, economic and financial activities in respect of which Malta is seeking to collaborate with the UK. Through the work of this Taskforce, Malta is reaching out to UK-based companies which are likely to want to set up base in a European Union Member State following Brexit, exploring ways in which to help such companies sustain their existing and future business models. It is encouraging to note that the interest that such companies have shown has already been significant, be it directly to the said Taskforce or via practitioners.
With the EU’s Fourth Anti-Money Laundering Directive bringing changes to the legal sector, is there anything you believe needs revising in Malta in relation to this?
Malta is still in the process of transposing the EU’s Fourth Anti-Money Laundering Directive into domestic laws. One of the benefits of this new regime is the enablement of a risk-based approach to AML compliance. This can definitely be used to the advantage of local operators, in that it allows them to tailor and shape their AML compliance regime in a manner that is proportionate to the nature, scale and complexity of their business and to the risks that they face. For a jurisdiction such as Malta, the proper application of the principle of proportionality is essential in ensuring that the introduction of a directive such as this is embraced as a leap towards improving one’s ways and systems, rather than a burden on its ability to conduct its operations. That being said, considering that the Directive allows vast discretion to national competent authorities to scale up the requirements, it is hoped that the local regulator will not adopt an overly-prescriptive approach which would defeat the purpose of the risk-based approach and negatively affect Malta’s competitive advantage in certain sectors.
In an effort to address these concerns, the regulator has been forthcoming with the industry by launching rounds of consultations in connection with the new AML regime, including a specific framework for the gaming sector. Consultations around the implementation of a central beneficial ownership registers are expected to follow shortly. It is hoped that initiatives such as these will assist the regulator in appreciating the circumstances and concerns of the subject persons of the Directive and consider same when taking a stand on certain aspects of the framework which are particularly relevant for Malta as a jurisdiction.
The reforms for the Insurance regulatory update aims to change transparency, fairness, consumer protection and harmonisation; in what ways do you believe this to be true?
The forthcoming Insurance Distribution Directive (‘IDD’) and the Regulation on Packaged Retail and Insurance-based Investment Products (‘PRIIPs’) are the two key frameworks which (re)insurance undertakings and distributors of (re)insurance products are focussing their efforts upon at the moment. Both legislative instruments align closely to other directives in terms of what they are seeking to achieve, namely transparency, fairness, protection for consumers across European financial services, the delivery of good customer outcomes, and, more broadly, harmonisation across all pockets of financial services.
The disclosure obligations imposed on manufacturers and distributors of (re)insurance products under the IDD and the PRIIPs are far more extensive that what market players, particularly intermediaries, have been accustomed to under the preceding regime, namely the Insurance Mediation Directive, which will now be completely abolished and replaced by the IDD. The main aims of the Insurance Product Information Document and the Key Information Document are specifically addressed at mandating the disclosure of, inter alia, key risks and costs that the consumer should be made aware of. In addition, disclosure obligations around remuneration, inducements and suitability assessment are equally onerous. Most of these new provisions, as well as other requirements around governance structures, competence and product approval processes, also replicate similar provisions which investment firms are conversant with under the MiFID framework.
In theory, the means by which the EU is seeking to achieve the above-stated aim sound robust. However, the effectiveness of the regime will ultimately depend on how it is applied and enforced in practice. The behavioural biases that consumers suffer from in practice would seem to suggest that consumers might be prone to information over-load as a result of these additional disclosures and as a result may tend to turn to their advisers and rely their judgement rather than read through the plethora of documentation. Consequently, the use of traditional regulatory tools such as disclosures is no longer sufficient to protect consumer and policymakers are thus forced to consider alternative ‘nudging’ measures through which to address and counteract these biases.
Briefly, can you explain the regulatory changes occurring in the insurance industry and how this will affect your clients?
The local industry has demonstrated time and time again that it is capable of adapting to the challenges it has had to face. This is also evident from the flexible models that the local regulator has sought to introduce over the years in relation to insurance, including protected cell companies, incorporated cell companies, securitisation cell companies and reinsurance special purpose vehicles, amongst others. Further, the domestic market has responded well to the Solvency II regime and, notwithstanding certain challenges (particularly in terms of the nature and extent of investment in human resources and reporting systems), the local market remains well-capitalised and able to meet and exceed its compliance obligations however unsurmountable they might seem.
In light of the regulatory changes brought about by the IDD and the PRIIPs Regulation in particular, the local industry will once more have to introduce new internal processes and procedures where appropriate, as well as revisiting existing ones. More importantly, the industry will have to think hard about how to align these developments which are specific to the insurance sector to other broader regulatory changes, such as the new general data protection regulation, the market abuse regime and the changes to the anti-money laundering framework, as well as keeping abreast with parallel guidance, technical standards, and similar pronouncements being issued by the local and European regulators.
The industry cannot afford to concentrate its efforts solely on compliance, however. The insurance industry is constantly evolving and embracing innovative technology, such as robo-advice, automation, InsurTech, and other technologies relating to data analytics, in an effort to personalise policyholder experience and stay ahead of competitors. Today’s rapidly evolving environment, consumer-centric culture and increasingly technology-driven economy requires insurers to be agile in order them to prosper. The sooner they acknowledge that disruption is here to stay, that customers are key and that risks are constantly changing, the smoother the adaptation will prove to be. The insurance industry must also be alert to the fact that there are multiple potential benefits linked to big data analytics and processes, but there are also a number of growing risks, such as privacy issues and cyber threats, which may have a significant reputational impact on the insurer and the sector if they were to materialise, apart from other consequences attached to regulatory breaches.
Camilleri Preziosi
Level 3, Valletta Buildings
South Street
Valletta, VLT 1103
Malta
(+356) 2123 8989
www.camilleripreziosi.com
Malcolm Falzon is a Partner in the Corporate & Finance practice group at Camilleri Preziosi. His areas of specialisation comprise capital markets, M&A, aviation and gaming. He is also responsible for the firm’s insurance practice, assisting local and international clients on regulatory, corporate, licensing and dispute resolution matters.
Diane Bugeja is a Senior Associate at Camilleri Preziosi Advocates, practicing primarily in the fields of financial services regulation and anti-money laundering regulation. Diane also advises local and overseas clients, including insurance and re-insurance undertakings and distributors, on the impact of the current and forthcoming regulatory regime on their business models.
Camilleri Preziosi is counsel to Malta’s largest broking house, prominent insurance companies and captives, and a number of other players in the insurance market including insurance agencies, insurance managers, loss adjusters and independent insurance consultants. The firm advises various London-based and continental insurance companies licensed to carry out business in Malta. The firm has amassed considerable experience in licensing and operational matters related to insurance and reinsurance, assisting clients in negotiations with the regulator for the purpose of setting up operations in Malta and, thereafter, in ensuring compliance with the regulatory framework.
Becoming a nationally known and respected Trial Lawyer is not easy; not only must you work hard to gain the best outcome for your clients, but you must push past competition, win trials others consider unwinnable, and face uphill battles and great difficulties in order to ensure justice is always served. We speak with Nick Rowley, who manages to achieve the best for his clients, while striving to change the personal injury sector. His passion for his work is evident in this insightful interview, where Nick touches on common issues he sees in his industry, why insurance companies and corporations never face up to serve justice and what is key behind connecting with the jury.
Who are the clients you advise day to day and what are the dominant issues you deal with?
As a trial lawyer I work on behalf of victims of serious injuries, professional negligence, and wrongful deaths. I am not a lawyer that is often found in a fancy office sitting behind a desk or in a conference room. Instead, I am most often found in a courtroom trying a case or at the home of a client spending time with them and their family, helping them get ready for the next trial. The people I represent need somebody who is going to care about them and spend time with them. I try many more cases than most who call themselves trial lawyers, and I win by caring about and connecting with my clients.
What actions or compensation is usually available to your clients suffering from industrial diseases?
Money is the only justice available in the civil cases I handle. Insurance companies and corporations are always the payers of the verdicts and settlements I win for my clients. They are controlling the litigation and the driving decision makers as to whether or not my clients receive compensation; unfortunately, insurance companies rarely want to do the right thing and pay out what is due.
With over 15 years’ experience in this sector, have you seen a significant increase in industrial disease-based personal injury claims? To what do you attribute this?
Yes, I have seen an increase. As corporations and insurance companies become stronger and stronger and get their politicians to pass laws that protect their conduct and to limit their liability and damages exposure, they get away with more and more resulting in more people getting hurt. The talc cases against Johnson and Johnson are a perfect example of this.
How does your firm face the increasing competitiveness in the personal injury sector?
We work hard to not be in any competition. There are some really great law firms in our country and we are proud to be one of them. We tend to take more cases to trial than most any other plaintiff firms in the country. Over a half of our cases come from other law firms who know what we do in the courtroom. Attorneys can advertise all they want but courtroom results are what speak the loudest. We are known as a team of trial lawyers who stand up for people and give them a voice they otherwise wouldn’t have. We take cases to trial that other lawyers or law firms would not take or would otherwise settle cheap. We get to know our clients on a personal level and by doing so, we truly understand what they are feeling and dealing with on a daily basis. Our client testimonials speak for themselves and when you win as consistently as we do, which is because of how we care and the work that we put in it, we don’t have to compete to get business. Unfortunately, we are sometimes in the position where we have to turn cases away.
What alternative aspects do you consider for your clients under the influence? What different challenges do these cases pose?
It depends on the case: we don't represent people who were under the influence and operating a vehicle or piece of machinery. But if our clients were under the influence of drugs or alcohol in a setting where that was OK and not a violation of the law, then we will look at the case and be honest with the judge and jury about whether that makes the individual comparatively at fault for what happened to them. Sometimes the mere fact that a person was under the influence of alcohol, prescription drugs or marijuana does not have any bearing on liability in the case
As a Thought Leader in your field, how are you developing or implementing new legislation or strategies surrounding personal injury?
Lawmakers are often in bed with insurance company executives, lobbyists, and other special interest groups fighting to limit the amount that injury victims can recover. I have a simple proposition for these corrupt lawmakers, which is that if they are going to limit and cap what injury victims can recover in a case, then be fair and also cap/limit what it is that insurance companies can charge policyholders for insurance. If there are going to be limitations, then do it the way Iowa did it and cap cases that don’t involve death or permanent life altering injuries. Do not enforce restrictions that never get adjusted to reflect inflation. The cap in California did absolutely nothing to reduce insurance rates or help the medical profession, and instead, the cap that was passed in 1976 resulted in an increase in patient injuries, because there were fewer lawyers willing to take cases and police the profession and acts of negligence. Medical negligence is a leading cause of death in California, and children and the elderly suffer the most as a result of the caps. 41 years later, the insurance companies are making a killing and the $250,000 cap from 1976 has never been adjusted or increased to reflect inflation. Not one politician or the Appellate or Supreme Court has the courage to change it. It's despicable and a horrible injustice. If we are going to limit the power of juries to decide damages, then limit insurance company profits in our country. Or, lastly to the politicians and Judges and Justices who support and enforce caps, when you or your family member gets injured, maimed, or killed, you tell me how much the insurance company should be required to pay and what the value of life is to you, or your family member, and be okay when you are treated cheap and have the wrongdoers thumb their noses at you. Limiting damages does nothing to benefit our society; the research has proven that the only ones that benefit from limiting damages are insurance companies and big corporations, which now have more power than people. I do not believe that politicians and lobbyists should be able to limit the decision-making power injustice of a jury. I am constantly fighting for the rights of people and against legislation that benefits the insurance industry in corporate America to the detriment of injury victims and families.
You deliver multiple keynote addresses nationwide on your revolutionary approach to discovering and telling the human story; what are three things you consider key for ‘connecting with the jury’?
In law school and at most law firms they teach you to not take cases personally and to not get personally involved with the case. I believe in the opposite. That is the number one key; the second is that you should not agree to handle a case that you are not willing to stand in front of a judge and jury on. Number three is that you need to get to know your client and care about them as a family member, because that is what you would want if somebody was representing you or your family.
As A Thought Leader, can you share what you think makes you ‘Outstanding Lawyer of the Year’?
Consistently winning in the courtroom on cases that other lawyers would not have the courage to take to trial or which would've been settled for a lot less money. My willingness to commit to standing in front of a jury and telling the stories of the people I represent at each trial is life or death for me. When I win a case, I don’t celebrate, I thank God and move on to the next case for a person in need.
When dealing with high-net cases, how do you ensure the emotions associated with traumatic personal injury claims keep you ahead of your game?
When I am representing an injured human being, the only thing on my mind is fighting for them to get the justice they deserve. I live, breathe, and dream about the case I am handling.
Is there anything else you would like to add?
For a while, the trial lawyer was a dying breed. I am intent and have worked hard on changing that. Our numbers are growing strong. Change and the days of reckoning are coming for corporate America and the insurance industry and corrupt politicians. The jury trial method of obtaining justice was the last stand against an elitist society controlled by lobbyists, corporate America and insurance companies. America is waking up. I am 40 years old, have tried 130 cases and I have another 30 or 40 years of doing this ahead of me and perhaps most importantly, I love what I do.
Nicholas Rowley
Trial Attorney
Many consider Nicholas C. Rowley to be the most accomplished trial lawyer of his generation. He has extensive courtroom experience representing victims of serious injuries and medical malpractice, especially those who have suffered traumatic brain injuries, spinal injuries, and chronic pain. In 2009 and 2010, the Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles (CAALA) named Nick as a finalist for its prestigious “Trial Lawyer of the Year” award. Nick was also recognized by the Los Angeles Daily Journal for winning a “Top Verdict of 2010” for his $31.6 million jury verdict for the victim of a traumatic brain injury. In 2012, Nick was a finalist for the “Consumer Attorney of the Year” award, given by CAOC (Consumer Attorneys of California). In 2009, the Consumer Attorneys of San Diego awarded Nick its “Outstanding Trial Lawyer” award. In 2013, Nick was honoured with the organization’s top award – “Outstanding Trial Lawyer of the Year”. Nick is the author of the book ‘Trial By Human’, where he candidly shares his approach that brings brutal honesty and humanity into the courtroom.
Carpenter, Zuckerman & Rowley was founded on the principle that justice for injured people is more important than insurance company profits. CZR is one of the largest law firms in the State of California exclusively dedicated to the representation of injured people. Because of our size and our strength, CZR has the resources to match the firepower of big insurance companies which do everything in their power to try to get a discount on the payment of legitimate claims. Carpenter, Zuckerman & Rowley will work with you on a contingency fee arrangement. If there is no recovery, you pay no fee. CZR is dedicated to the pursuit of justice. We will never settle for anything less than the maximum compensation for your injuries. CZR can arrange for you to see top medical specialists. We can help you receive the medical care you need in order to return to the life that you had before you were injured.
Besides his in-depth understanding of rules and procedures, Julian Heiss possesses strong interpersonal skills, creative thinking and the necessary analytical and investigative skills to develop effective legal strategies and litigate complex cases. He speaks with us today about new criminal law legislation and why cannabis should be legalised.
What motivated you to embark upon a career focused on this practice area?
I think I was born to be a criminal lawyer. Already as a small kid I stood up for the ‘underdogs’. I believe in the concept ‘innocent until proven guilty’, and that everyone should be afforded due process and equal protection under the law. I can make a difference in someone’s life and help people in need. This is what I love about my job and motivates me every single day.
What are the most recent regulatory developments surrounding fraud crimes and related criminal law in Germany?
Recently the new German Money Laundering Act entered into force. The Act contains various new elements, which must now be integrated in to the compliance systems of all companies. New legislation on the confiscation and deprivation of ill-gotten gains in criminal cases – The Reform Act – has also recently come into force. Its basic objective is to reorganise and facilitate victim compensation, and effectively confiscate illegal proceeds from the offender or third-party beneficiaries.
How will these changes affect litigation in the criminal law arena?
Previously, confiscation was limited to certain organised crime cases. Now, the court can order a confiscation if it is convinced that the source of the specific asset in question was a criminal offence. This may be the case if the court identifies a substantial difference between the value of a specific asset and the regular legal income of the suspect. The enforcement of financial claims against criminal offenders is now handled by the criminal justice authorities, who distribute the assets among the victims.
The Money Laundering Act’s core element is the introduction of a transparency register, which will impact practically all German companies. The Act also provides for increased risk assessments as well as an extended catalogue of administrative offenses with increased financial penalties. Moreover, the law gives supervisory authorities additional powers in cases where money-laundering obligations are breached, for example, in temporarily banning persons from exercising managerial functions.
What are currently the biggest obstacles to effectively combating tax avoidance and evasion schemes in Germany as well as globally, and what solutions do you recommend?
Recent corporate tax evasion scandals reveal that despite of progress in terms of greater tax fairness, transparency, and exchange of information, plenty remains to be done to close existing loopholes. I think it requires a combination of several approaches to end complicated tax avoidance and evasion schemes: including harmonisation of tax bases, ambitious reforms, and efficient transparency standards at an international level. We need to create a level playing field for all businesses in the EU. Furthermore, the German Federal Ministry of Finance and the revenue authorities of Germany’s federal states, who administer the German tax system, need to work together closely to effectively tackle tax avoidance.
What do you think could be done to tackle narcotic crimes, in ways that will benefit your clients and society?
In Germany, since beginning of the year, marijuana is now legal for medicinal purposes. However, I think this law does not go far enough, and the sale and ownership of a soft drug like marijuana should be fully legalised. Consumers are being criminalised, which can have a devastating effect on their lives. I have seen many young people’s lives being ruined because of involvement with cannabis. They buy the drug from black market dealers, get involved with the wrong people, and eventually they lose their job when a charge appears on their criminal record – drawing them deeper and deeper into drug abuse and criminal actions.
Legalisation would also reduce crime associated with buying and end the the ability of criminals and organized crime to make large amounts of money through cannabis trafficking. Also, much as with tobacco and alcohol, it would be much easier to control the quality of production eliminating harmful contaminants and diluents as well as controlling ant taxing consumption. Again, as with tobacco and alcohol educational campaigns informing young people as to the risks of use and abuse can be expected to play their part in controlling consumption.
In my opinion, criminal prohibition has failed. Too little money was spent on prevention and rehabilitation and too much on prosecution.
Julian Heiss
Partner, Certified Specialist in Criminal Law
Cura Advocati
Falkensteiner Str. 77
60322 Frankfurt am Main
Deutschland
T + 49 (0)69 9778660
F + 49 (0)69 97786666
julian.heiss@cura-advocati.de
Julian Heiss is one of the founding partners of Cura Advocati and leads the law firm´s criminal department since 2003.
As a certified specialist in criminal law with more than 14 years of experience Julian Heiss has handled hundreds of trials and a long list of clients across Germany in all criminal law segments, both as advisor and as litigator. He defends his clients before Local Courts, Regional Courts, Higher Regional Courts and before the Federal Supreme Court and has extensive trial, plea bargaining and negotiating experience.
See his referrals on Anwalt.de, one of the leading advocate registers in Germany (in German language).
