Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
On August 15, Taliban militants retook Afghanistan's capital, almost two decades after they were driven from Kabul by the USA. Although security forces in the capital were well-funded and well-equipped, they were unable to defend Afghanistan following the withdrawal of US troops that began in early July. By August 30, the final batch of US troops had withdrawn from Afghanistan following a huge and chaotic airlift that cost the lives of 13 troops while thousands of Afghans were left behind, still seeking an escape from Taliban rule.
Afghanistan has long been one of the largest countries of origin for people seeking asylum in the UK, though many refugees have faced substantial obstacles when attempting to obtain adequate protection. Until very recently, the UK government had classified Kabul as a safe destination for asylum-seekers to return to, including people from the LGBTQI+ community who were advised to be discreet about their identity to protect themselves.
Now, in the wake of the Taliban's takeover, the UK Home Office has launched the Afghanistan Citizen’ Resettlement Scheme, a new route opening for the resettlement of Afghan refugees which will prioritise people most in need, including:
Working with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to identify those most in need, the Government plans to welcome around 5,000 refugees in the scheme’s first year and up to 20,000 over the coming years.
However, several refugee charities have questioned how the Government’s resettlement scheme will work alongside proposed changes to the UK’s asylum systems which criminalises people who travel to the UK independently by boat or lorry. Critics of the scheme have stressed that demand for resettlement schemes, particularly following the Taliban’s takeover of Afghanistan, invariably fall short of allocated places.
While the terms “refugee” and “asylum seeker” are often confused and are commonly used interchangeably, there are key differences between the two. A refugee is a person fleeing armed conflicts or persecution. Their situation is so dangerous that they seek safety in another country, receiving assistance from the country and aid organisations. They are protected by international law.
An asylum seeker, on the other hand, is a person who claims to be a refugee but whose claim is yet to be evaluated. They would have applied for asylum because returning to their country would lead to persecution. While a person’s application is pending, they remain an asylum seeker.
Not every asylum seeker will come to be recognised as a refugee, but every refugee is initially an asylum seeker.
In the UK, refugee status is granted to those recognised as refugees by the Home Office, as outlined in the Refugee Convention. Upon achieving official refugee status, refugees are typically allowed to stay in the country for up to five years. After this period, they can apply for Indefinite Leave to Remain. As a refugee, they share the same human rights as legal residents, including:
Refugees in the UK are also granted permission to work within any profession and at any skill level. Those who are unable to work can apply for welfare benefits, including income support, Jobseeker’s Allowance, Pension Credit, Employment and Support Allowance, Universal Credit, and Refugee Integration Loan.
Asylum seekers, on the other hand, are not granted permission to work in the UK. While their claim is being considered, asylum seekers have the right to claim temporary accommodation and basic living support and are encouraged to volunteer. However, until asylum seekers receive a decision as to whether or not they have been granted refugee status, they do not possess the same rights as one.
The right to seek asylum is a legal right that all people share. Because seeking asylum is a legal process, it’s never illegal to seek asylum and it also isn’t illegal to be refused asylum by a particular country. Being denied asylum simply means that a person hasn’t been able to meet the often very tough criteria set to prove one’s need for protection as a refugee.
There is also no requirement by the 1951 Refugee Convention, nor EU law, for people to claim asylum in the first safe country into which they enter. People can legitimately claim asylum in the UK if they cross its borders.
The Nationality and Borders Bill that is currently under consideration in Parliament proposes a two-tier approach to refugee protection that would discriminate between people based on their mode of arrival into the UK. However, as recent scenes from Kabul Airport demonstrate, regulated means of travel are simply not available to every Afghan citizen who needs to escape the country.
Furthermore, case law from 2007 establishes the principle that returning asylum seekers to areas under Taliban control — now the entire country — would breach obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention.
With these factors in hand, critics are urging the UK government to do more to help and protect Afghan refugees and asylum seekers. The Joint Council for The Welfare of Immigrants, for example, has compiled a list of recommendations to the Government. Their recommendations include abandoning the two-tier refugee protection system, immediately protecting all Afghans already in the UK, and widening access to safe routes for refugees.
The adoption of such recommendations would allow a much more driven and compassionate response to the crisis in Afghanistan, ensuring that resettlement options are generous, and that people who independently flee the country are still able to access the protection needed to rebuild their lives.
Goodwin’s first year trainees are now on a salary of £52,000, up 13% from £46,000, while second year trainees are set to earn £57,000 each year, a rise of 14% from £50,000. The pay rises came into effect this month.
The pay rise surpasses those recently announced by magic circle firms Freshfield, Clifford Chance, and Slaughter and May. Pay for junior recruits at these firms currently sits at £50,000 for first years and £55,000 for second years. However, Goodwin’s new rates still fall slightly short of the highest paying firm, Davis Polk & Wardwell, which pays out £57.5k to first years, while second years receive an impressive £62.5k.
Each year, Goodwin offers 14 training contract places in London. Trainees who qualify and stay on at the firm can expect to see their salaries more than double to £147,000.
Pieter Looijenga, Account Manager at LexisNexis InterAction, explores business development considerations that help to strengthen the foothold law firms now have in the EU.
Many large UK law firms are opening offices within the European Union jurisdiction, post-Brexit, as they look to protect their business, but perhaps also to take advantage of an opportunity to expand internationally. This trend isn’t unique to the legal sector. The UK financial services sector is heading in the same direction – the EY Financial Services BrexitTracker data shows that 43% of the firms monitored have publicly stated the move of some of their UK operations to Europe.
As firms embark on their international expansion initiatives, a strategic approach to business development (BD) will play a vital role in how quickly they are able to establish a foothold in the region. Let’s look at some key considerations here.
At the risk of stating the obvious, the business rationale must trump just pure aspiration or desire to expand into a new region. Do the following scenarios sound familiar? A partner returns from a visit to a country and based on an initial “good feeling” about the region, suggests a presence in the region. Or a firm opens a new office in a particular city because the Managing Partner is based there. Or even, a new senior executive joins the firm with language skills in a particular region, which potentially becomes a reason to establish a presence in a country.
It’s a case of “should” versus “could”. An analysis of things like how many existing clients have offices in the country in question, could the firm extend its reach still based in the UK, are there good relationships with intermediaries in that jurisdiction, and what kind of new skills and resources would be required, is a good place to start. Similarly, who are the new prospects in that region for whom conflict checks need to be done to determine if they indeed are organisations with whom business could be done with and so on, must be undertaken.
Sometimes firms, for purely marketing reasons, open offices in other jurisdictions as outposts, potentially in the misguided belief that their ‘brand’ and local presence will be sufficient to help them tap into the market. So, they rent offices, deploy systems, hire some staff and then expect the practice to flourish. Often, they’re either unsuccessful or accomplish minimally. Why? Because the office operates in isolation, there’s hardly any knowledge and best practice sharing with the parent firm, no partners and lawyers are seconded to drive and establish the business, and there’s no cultural grounding.
To create a meaningful presence, firms must look to standardise business processes by expanding the deployment of their current technology systems including practice management, finance and accounting, marketing, BD and CRM, to the new office. Doing so will ensure that the new office hits the ground running, benefits from a structured and goal-orientated approach to BD including capabilities for referral and pipeline management, targeted marketing campaigns, passive data management and Microsoft Outlook synchronisation, data sharing and compliance, and the list goes on.
If the firm’s expansion is via an acquisition, the same approach applies – but with the added requirement for alignment (both operational and cultural) across the two organisations. CRM technology again can play a substantive role. Drilling down into the analytics provided by the system such as the strengths and weaknesses of client relationships across the combined network of the two firms, the engagement scores of lawyers and partners with key clients, and the reasons for success and failure of past campaigns, will greatly assist in the development of a compelling business strategy for growth.
With digital, remote and hybrid working formats now the norm, a firm-wide CRM system housing a single contacts database is more essential than ever before. It will provide a holistic, 360 degrees view of clients and prospects, which will help BD teams make connections across their network of influence and identify new opportunities – as they work towards hitting their business growth targets for the region.
Of course, ensuring compliance with the various data privacy and data protection regimes in the EU is imperative – a lot of which can be incorporated and automated in the firm’s CRM system. However, a word of caution – typically, the database administration team is tasked with applying data privacy and protection policies to the contacts database in the CRM system. When extending the CRM system to another geography, given the complexities and nuances of data protection regulations, tasking the database team to ensure compliance is a big ask.
So ideally, the regulatory element is best driven by the firm’s compliance team, who are better equipped to ensure conformity with regulations, both at a global and a country-level. For example, data suppressions and the right to be forgotten as part of the GDPR may need to be automatically applied at a global level whilst communications and mailing preferences and opt-outs may require to be enforced at a global and potentially at a regional level. This approach will ensure that the new office’s BD efforts aren’t unduly hamstrung, and indeed the value of best practice, firm-wide CRM isn’t lost.
A well-considered and robust approach to BD will facilitate a healthy book of work, from the ‘get go’, whilst enabling the team to routinely course correct. CRM technology can support such programmes – right from when the idea is seeded – by providing insight and intelligence to aid the development and execution of a business strategy that delivers against tangible business objectives.
With so many law firms operating in large cities and small towns, it’s not always easy to establish yourself as one of the best. You want people to know your law firm’s name and recall it when they need help, but it can seem almost impossible to compete with other well-established firms. While reputations can take many years to build, taking some of the following steps may help your firm stand out to people who need your help.
Some people can be unsure about taking their case to court as they don’t have enough money to pay lawyers’ fees. However, if you’re a no win no fee lawyer, you can tell clients that they don’t have to pay a cent unless they win their case, including disbursements. This can be a weight off anyone’s mind, especially if they know they have a solid case but just don’t have the funds to make it a legal fight.
Many people rely on search engines to find legal assistance. Create a website to make sure your name can appear prominently when someone requires your help for a car accident claim, medical malpractice, or another legal issue. Once you have created an aesthetically pleasing site for potential clients to visit, put time and effort into SEO and marketing to make it easy to locate in a search.
People want to hire law firms and lawyers they can trust and who have provided past clients with the results they desired. Make this information prominent by asking past clients for Google reviews. You can’t specifically ask for good reviews, but you can be strategic about who you ask to bring up your overall rating in the digital space.
Lawyers can be intimidating to some people, especially in a courtroom environment. Make yourself appear more approachable and personable by creating regular video content. You can create informational videos for your website, but also behind-the-scenes insights into what you do every day while demonstrating that you are approachable. This video content can be helpful for SEO purposes, but also to help you build a connection with the general public.
It can sometimes seem like the more powerful you are, the harder you can be to contact. Lawyers are busy working over 40 hours a week, but that doesn’t mean they should be out of reach of the general public needing assistance.
Make sure there are many ways to contact your firm, such as online chat, phone, and email. Even if it’s not you at the other end of the phone all the time, not being met with a busy signal or radio silence may bolster your reputation.
Standing out from other law firms for the right reasons can take a long time, but it can also be a lot easier than you might think. Be approachable, competitive with your fee structure, and make use of the digital space. You may then be who many people call upon in their time of need.
The complaints, obtained by the Hollywood Reporter, came after the estate of the late comics artist Steve Ditko filed a notice of termination with the US Copyright Office for the copyright of Dr Strange and Spider-Man. Both characters are currently held by Marvel Entertainment. However, Ditko co-created both alongside the late Stan Lee and his estate is looking to terminate the grant of copyright to Marvel by June 2023.
Ditko’s estate filed the notices back in August, amid a flurry of others filed by intellectual property lawyer Marc Toberoff on behalf of the estates of comics artists and writers such as Gene Colan, Don Heck, and Don Rico. The notices seek to reclaim rights over several iconic characters including Iron Man, Black Widow, Thor, and Captain Marvel.
Marvel responded to the notices with a series of lawsuits, arguing that the characters are “work made for hire” and, as such, the Copyright Act’s terminations provisions do not apply.
However, speaking to The New York Times, Toberoff said, “At the time all these characters were created, their material was definitely not ‘work made for hire’ under the law. These guys were all freelancers or independent contractors, working piecemeal for car fare out of their basements.”
Max Ballad, Legal Director at Arc Pensions Law, discusses new challenges for employers and the pensions regulator amid changes to the notifiable events regulations.
The Department for Work and Pensions has launched a consultation on the government’s proposed changes to the notifiable events regulations. Section 69 of the Pensions Act, 2004 requires the trustees and employers involved in a scheme to notify the Pensions Regulator (TPR) of certain prescribed events. The government now intends to expand the list of events that trigger this notification requirement, while also removing the existing prescribed event of wrongful trading.
The proposed The Pensions Regulator (Notifiable Events) (Amendment) Regulations, 2021 not only increases the list of notifiable events, but also expands the duties of employers to provide information to TPR about proposed transactions. While the proposed regulations look set to provide welcome clarity, the risk is that they could become unduly burdensome in practice. Much will depend on how pragmatic an approach TPR takes when it comes to actually implementing the new regime.
The consultation runs until 27 October 2021. This means that the new notifiable events regime will not yet be in force when TPR's new powers to issue contribution notices come into effect on 1 October 2021.
Amongst a raft of smaller definitional changes, the draft regulations set out two major new notifiable events. One relates to the sale of a material proportion of the business or assets of a scheme employer. The other relates to granting or extending security with priority over the scheme.
Originally, the sale of a business or assets notifiable event was only going to apply to employers who have responsibility for at least 20% of the scheme's funding liabilities. That threshold has been removed in the draft regulations. The consultation explains that the rationale for this is to relieve employers of the burden of having to work out what proportion of the liabilities an employer is responsible for. Such calculations are certainly not always easy to make, particularly in multi-employer schemes.
The consultation suggests that the events will have to be notified to TPR at an early stage. The draft regulations refer to the requirement to notify being triggered once "a decision in principle" has been made. The consultation suggests that this means TPR should be notified before any negotiations have begun. This early notification requirement also applies to one of the existing notifiable events, a decision by a controlling company to relinquish control of an employer company. The timing for TPR notification of this event is earlier than is required by the current regulations.
The government also proposes a new requirement for the appropriate person - the employer or connected or associated person - to give notice to TPR of certain intended transactions for which "the main terms have been proposed". These transactions are the two new notifiable events and the change of control event.
Notifications will need to be sent to TPR with accompanying statements, while a copy must also be sent to the scheme's trustees. The accompanying statement will have to set out details of the main terms of the transaction, any adverse effects on the scheme or employer and the proposed mitigation for any adverse effects. Notice with an accompanying statement will also have to be given to TPR if there is a change to the proposed main terms of the transaction or the mitigation or the transaction does not proceed.
There seems to be scope for debate about the timing of notifications.The consultation indicates that the notifiable event - triggered by a decision in principle - comes first and that the notice and accompanying statement must only be supplied to TPR after it has become certain that the transaction will proceed and once effects on the scheme have been considered.
The draft regulations seek to overcome this by defining "decision in principle" as a "decision prior to any negotiations or agreements being entered into with another party". This means that TPR may not be much involved until it receives the notice and accompanying statement. Until then, it will not have sufficient detail as regards the main terms of the transaction and any proposed mitigation measures.
There is no obligation under the legislation for TPR to respond to the notice and accompanying statement. Although TPR is likely to intervene where it isn’t satisfied with the proposed mitigation, the timing of any intervention is uncertain. Complying with the new requirements will not be a substitute for a clearance application. It will give TPR information to consider whether there are grounds for exercising its powers and to intervene where it believes that the interests of the scheme have not been properly taken into account.
The consultation concludes that the draft regulations - combined with the Pension Schemes Act, 2021 – deliver on the government’s manifesto commitment to empower TPR to protect schemes from unscrupulous managers. The Conservative Party’s 2017 manifesto stated that “The current powers of regulators and the Pension Protection Fund are insufficient to ensure that pension savers, pensioners and prudent company directors are protected from unscrupulous business owners”. It promised to “act to tighten the rules against such abuse, and increase the punishment for those caught mismanaging pension schemes”, while also giving TPR, “the right to scrutinise, clear with conditions or in extreme cases stop mergers, takeovers or large financial commitments that threaten the solvency of the scheme.”
The proposed regulations mean that TPR will get notified about a wider range of transactions earlier and that it will receive more information. The first challenge for TPR will be to develop the capacity to rapidly analyse the integrity and implications of the information it receives so that it can effectively identify questionable activity. The second challenge will be to achieve this without unduly disrupting the legitimate transactional activity of the vast majority of employers. We must therefore hope that TPR will use its new powers in a balanced and proportionate manner.
At the start of a five-day hearing, Google representatives told judges at the General Court that Android has been a huge success story of competition at work.
Back in 2018, the European Commission fined Google, claiming that, since 2011, it had used Android to thwart rivals and solidify its dominance in general internet search.
Tech giants Google, Apple, Amazon, and Facebook will all be required to change their business models over the next few years regardless of the court’s decision. This is to ensure a level playing field for their competitors following new rules proposed by European Union antitrust chief Margrethe Vestager.
Commission lawyer Nicholas Khan defended Apple’s role on the grounds of its small market share compared with Android, which is found on approximately 80% of smartphones worldwide.
This particular case is the most important of the EU’s three cases against Google, due to Android’s huge market power. In the past decade, Google has racked up over Є8 billion in EU antitrust fines.
If you or a loved one has been in an accident and has the right to claim compensation, it’s likely a sensitive and difficult time. You might be undergoing treatment, focusing on recovery, or even mourning the loss of a family member. You may also have many questions about how to file a claim, get the maximum possible compensation, or even find a lawyer you can trust to handle your case. Here, we cover five of the most frequently asked questions when filing a personal injury claim.
The best way to find a personal injury attorney is to ask your friends and family who have hired a lawyer (or know others who have and whose opinion you trust) to handle their case. This same process can be followed to hire any type of professional. Aim to collect three or four names and then do some independent research. This might involve looking at their websites to see if they handle your specific case type. For example, if you’re looking for an auto accident attorney in Greenville, SC, a lawyer who specialises in medical malpractice cases in Tennessee is unlikely to be the best fit. When doing your research, don’t forget to also look for independent testimonials on third-party review sites, which can give you an insight into how other clients’ cases were handled and how well-supported they felt by their lawyers.
Once you’ve done your research and eliminated any firms that aren’t a good fit, get in touch and interview them. Ask about the previous cases they have worked on — especially if they are similar to your case — and what the process of working with them entails. This is your opportunity to ask all the questions you might have, and the right attorney will be more than happy to answer them honestly while being empathetic to your situation.
Hiring a lawyer is an important decision and could make the difference between a small settlement and getting a large payout. Don’t be afraid to shop around and ask questions — just because a law firm has spent a chunk of their marketing budget on a catchy radio jingle doesn’t necessarily mean they will be the best fit for you.
One mistake people often make when looking to file a personal injury claim is not taking action fast enough. The statute of limitations on injury cases varies by state. In South Carolina, for example, the statute of limitations on most tort cases (car wrecks, slips and falls, etc.) is three years, though there are exceptions. In Kentucky, however, the statute of limitations is just one year, so if you don’t realise you are eligible to make a claim and seek help from a lawyer in that time, you can miss out on a potentially substantial payout that is rightfully yours.
However, one of the bigger problems many lawyers encounter is that clients admirably try to let their injuries work out on their own months after an accident and only seek medical help when their situation isn’t improving.
Insurance companies often point to this gap in treatment as evidence that a person is not hurt, when in reality, they simply don’t want to go to a doctor and risk hefty medical bills. This often makes it much more difficult to prove the extent of damage resulting from the accident and, therefore, get the best compensation. Sadly, it’s very often the case that “good people make bad cases”.
While personal injury lawyers advertise that there is no fee unless the claim is successful, many people don’t realise they won’t have to pay upfront or if the claim is rejected. This can put off would-be clients who have a claim but cannot afford a lawyer, and so it’s one of the more common misconceptions of making a personal injury claim.
Personal injury lawyers operate on a no-win, no-fee basis, which means that you will only pay your lawyer’s fees if you are awarded a settlement. This is often deducted from the total insurance payout, so all money you receive from your lawyer after a case is settled is yours.
Negotiating with insurance companies is not straightforward and can be a battle. Some adjusters will stall for time, use excuses for non-payment and plan on doing everything in their power not to pay a claim. An adjuster’s job is to pay as little as possible, and it’s an adverse relationship, no matter how charming the adjuster may seem. Your personal injury lawyer should have your best interests at heart and fight for a fair settlement, so don’t sign any paperwork before consulting your attorney.
The best way to get maximum compensation is to hire an experienced, reputable injury attorney. These lawyers specialise in your type of claim and can help you negotiate the muddy waters of insurance settlements, so always listen to their advice as your case evolves.
Hiring a personal injury lawyer is an important decision and not one that should be taken lightly. While you have to consider the statute of limitations in your state, you should give yourself time to research and interview the firms you’re considering. Taking action early is always recommended to ensure you work with a reputable attorney dedicated to getting you a fair result.
Mondelez, which owns big names such as Oreo and Toblerone, claims that Primal Pantry’s snack bar “exploits” the trademark of its Milka chocolate bars. Mondelez’s lawyers are demanding that the use of lilac packaging for the snack bar be swapped out, warning of a £5,200 penalty each time the trademark is infringed. However, Nurture Brands, which owns Primal Pantry, denies exploiting the trademark.
Primal Pantry’s snack bars were launched back in 2016 in a range of different coloured packaging so that "they have good differentiation on a shelf together", said the managing director of Nurture Brands, Adam Draper. "We don't think it is the same colour or even in the same spectrum," he added.
Draper went on to say that, despite the legal letter, Mondelez is yet to provide evidence that the packaging colour is similar enough to infringe on the Milka trademark.
According to the BBC, Mondelez has given Nurture Brands six months to swap out its lilac packaging. However, in 2019, its subsidiary Cadbury lost an appeal to protect the particular shade of purple used for its packaging.
Prosecutors and defence lawyers concluded their closing arguments last week. Now the 12-strong jury will begin deliberating on the charges of sex trafficking and racketeering bought against the 54-year-old singer.
In addition to being accused of running a trafficking ring, R Kelly is also charged with multiple violating of the Mann Act, the federal law which criminalises the transportation of “any woman or girl for the purpose of prostitution or debauchery, or for any other immoral purpose.”
Plaintiffs say R Kelly subjected them to perverse and sadistic whims when they were underage. They say they believe the fame and celebrity of R Kelly enabled him to do whatever he wanted. Assistant US attorney Nadia Shihata added that the singer’s alleged victims “aren’t groupies or gold diggers, they’re human beings.”
The prosecution claims R Kelly deliberately gave a 17-year-old girl herpes and would subject his victims to degrading rules. He allegedly forced them to call him “Daddy” and filmed them having sexual intercourse as a means of control.
R Kelly has denied any wrongdoing. His defence attorney Deveraux Cannick told the jury that testimony by several accusers was full of lies. "He gave them a lavish lifestyle," Cannick said. "That's not what a predator is supposed to do."
