Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
Women’s health and wellness is a billion-dollar industry. Unfortunately, we have seen greedy companies put profits ahead of the health of women consumers by neglecting to fully vet their products for health risks before putting them on shelves. They are not quick to pull products either. Now, women are paying the price in high rates of serious health complications. There are many loopholes that allow dangerous products to enter the market — and stay there.
This needs to stop. Women deserve to use products that are safe and effective.
This article highlights pending and past litigation for defective products designed for women and what we can learn from them.
Johnson & Johnson (J&J) baby powder was one of the company’s earliest and best-sold products. Its key ingredient is talcum powder. Although J&J baby powder is sold in the baby aisle, adult women have long used it between their legs to prevent chafing and on the pubic area as a feminine deodorant. J&J later released Shower to Shower body powder, also containing talc, specifically for adults. Now, many lifetime users of these products have developed ovarian and lung cancers. More than 25,000 lawsuits are pending against the corporation, including a major class action suit filed by Napoli Shkolnik PLLC and Ben Crump Law just last month.
Several times beginning as early as the 1970s, J&J’s raw talc and finished powders tested positive for asbestos — a known carcinogen — which happens to occur naturally in the earth near talc deposits. J&J company executives, mine managers, scientists, doctors and lawyers knew about these instances of contamination, but did not disclose them to regulators or the public. In 2006, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified perineal use of talc as “possibly carcinogenic”, saying available research provided “limited evidence” it caused cancer in humans. Again, J&J did not pass this information down to consumers.
Not only was J&J aware of the risks of talcum powder, it also amped up its advertising when sales began to decline in the 2000s. Our lawsuit cites disturbing evidence that J&J especially targeted Black women in its ad campaigns. Tactics included distributing millions of free baby powder samples in Black and Hispanic neighborhoods; advertising with Weight Watchers and other lifestyle brands favored by overweight women, and radio ads aired during the hot summer months when demand for baby powder would be highest.
[ymal]
The success of the ad campaigns targeted at Black women is rooted in the historically racist and sexist notion that Black women are in some way “unclean” and must fix their natural scent through actions like douching. Brands like J&J took advantage of these hurtful stigmas to boost sales, failing to protect consumers in the process.
J&J finally issued a recall on over 30,000 bottles of baby powder in 2019 after asbestos was found. In 2020, the company announced it would discontinue selling talc-based baby powder in the US and Canada.
Baby powder is classified as a cosmetic. Under the FDA’s Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), cosmetic products and ingredients — except for colour additives — do not need FDA review or approval before they go on the market. The FD&C Act makes it the responsibility of the pharmaceutical company to test their products for safety. It is also up to the pharmaceutical company to issue voluntary recalls if hazards are discovered, as the FDA cannot order a recall unless there is reliable information indicating that the product is adulterated or misbranded to an extent that could cause serious harm or death.
Pharmaceutical companies can register with the Voluntary Cosmetic Registration Program (VCRP), a post-market reporting system that assists the FDA in regulating cosmetics marketed in the United States. The FDA website states, “Information from the VCRP database also has been used by the Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR), an independent, industry-funded panel of scientific experts, to assist the CIR Expert Panel in establishing their priorities for assessing ingredient safety as part of their ingredient safety review”.
But the VCRP is just that: voluntary. And the database is only as useful as the products registered. Leaving pharmaceutical companies to self-regulate their products is problematic because there is no guideline for how to test for safety; the definition of “safe” becomes subjective. In the case of Johnson & Johnson, it determined from their testing that the amount of asbestos found in earlier baby powder contaminations was not harmful enough to report — yet there is no known “safe” amount of asbestos. In this way, self-regulation makes it impossible to tell whether a pharmaceutical company is telling the whole truth about their product.
The FD&C Act makes it the responsibility of the pharmaceutical company to test their products for safety.
Medical devices are subject to more regulation than cosmetic products, but harmful medical devices still make it onto the market. Health complications from medical devices can be far more severe. Here are some of the ways the FDA regulates them, and where they fall short:
Black Box Warnings, or “boxed warnings,” are printed on the labelling of a prescription drug or medical device if there is a risk of serious injury or death associated with using the product. The FDA mandated a black box warning for the female sterilisation device Essure in 2016 amid thousands of reports of complications following placement of the device. As of 2020, there have been over 16,000 medical device reports (MDRs) of abdominal pain, ectopic pregnancy, organ perforation, and other serious adverse side effects associated with Essure.
FDA Adverse Events Reporting System (FAERS) is a database that contains adverse event reports, medication error reports and product quality complaints resulting in adverse events that were submitted to the FDA. There is both voluntary reporting and mandatory reporting. Manufacturers, importers, and device user facilities are required to report certain device-related adverse events and product problems to the FDA, usually serious injury or death.
Similarly, the makers of the birth control device NuvaRing were also sued for failing to adequately warn consumers about the heightened risk of blood clots and other injuries associated with the product. In 2013, NuvaRing paid a $100 million settlement to Napoli Shkolnik clients harmed by the product.
Premarket Approval and Classification. FDA-approved drugs and medical devices are categorized as Class I, II, or III. Class III is the highest risk class, and as such has strict research and safety requirements for premarket approval (PMA). Transvaginal mesh, which is used to treat urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse (POP), was upgraded from Class II to Class III in 2016. The FDA has since found several surgical mesh implant PMA applications to have insufficient proof of safety. Thousands of women are experiencing devastating, even fatal complications from transvaginal mesh as manufacturers shell out huge settlements. Had the product been correctly classified and tested from the beginning, irreparable harm could have been avoided.
As a leader in pharmaceutical litigation and a woman myself, I am heartbroken by the number of women currently suffering because of the malfeasance and negligence of money-hungry companies. We must reform the way cosmetics, drugs and medical devices get on the market, how they are marketed, and the process by which to get them recalled, or countless other people will be put at risk of serious injury or even death. It is time for us to prioritisez the health and safety of women and not lining the pockets of companies.
Marie Napoli, Founding Partner
Address: 360 Lexington Avenue, 11th floor, New York, NY 10017
Tel: +1 212 397 1000
Marie Napoli has been an attorney for over twenty-five years. She has experience handling personal injury, medical malpractice litigation, pharmaceutical litigation, employment discrimination, civil rights, and mass tort matters. Marie earned her JD from St John’s University Law School and her LLM degree from New York University (NYU) School of Law. She has worked for the New York Appellate Division, 2nd Department and has taught CLE courses on Tort and Civil Procedure at St John’s University School of Law. As a founding partner of Napoli Shkolnik PLLC, Marie is involved in many depositions and has tried multiple cases to verdict. She is also bringing her considerable skillset and experience to a collaboration with Ben Crump on numerous social injustice litigations.
Napoli Shkolnik is a national law firm based in New York City. Their personal injury attorneys represent victims across the country in litigation, mediation and arbitration across a range of practice areas, including medical malpractice, environmental litigation and civil rights. With additional offices in Long Island, New Jersey, California, Delaware, Florida, Illinois and Texas, Napoli Shkolnik’s team boasts 30+ years of experience and more than $3 billion secured for their clients through verdicts and settlements.
Corporate criminal liability has been transformed beyond all recognition in the past 15 years. Not only have fines increased significantly, but the expectations placed on corporates have also changed fundamentally.
Companies are now expected to behave responsibly. That does not only mean doing no wrong; it means preventing others from doing wrong as well. And if they do not, they risk not merely reputational harm but criminal prosecution and highly punitive fines.
A key change has been the growth and development of the “regulatory” approach. Traditionally, the most serious offences have been “mens rea” offences. These offences require proof of the relevant mental element (e.g. knowledge or intention) as well as the relevant act. Regulatory offences, previously seen as less serious, are to the effect that if the proscribed thing happens, or the required thing does not, an offence is committed, and it does not matter whether an organisation meant it or even knew about it.
Sometimes, regulatory offences have a due diligence provision – so that it would not be an offence if the person in question did all they reasonably could, but the proscribed thing still happened despite their efforts. However, it is the nature of regulatory offences to be easy to commit and difficult to defend.
It is hard for companies to commit mens rea offences because it typically requires a directing mind (usually a director) to commit the offence which is then attributed to the company. Often, directing minds are not involved with the relevant conduct – or at least not provably so.
Corporate criminal liability has been transformed beyond all recognition in the past 15 years.
Legal scholars used to query the justification for fining corporations, effectively the shareholders, for conduct they might not have approved or been aware of, i.e. of which they were innocent. It was also doubted that the shareholders would be moved (or be in a position) to take steps to address the offending. In any event, it was thought to be curious reasoning that an innocent person should be punished in order to compel them to do something which the law could do directly.
In more recent years the concern became that identification doctrine was shielding companies from criminal liability. The response has been the extension of the regulatory approach to mens rea offences.
In 2010, the UK introduced a “failure to prevent bribery” offence which makes commercial organisations criminally liable if a bribery offence is committed by an “associated person” – a very broad term that could include sub-contractors or suppliers – so long as that person intended a business advantage for the organisation.
There is no minimum level of culpability; the draft bill required proof of negligence, but that requirement was dropped. The only defence for the company is to show that it had adequate procedures to prevent such conduct. In other words, commercial organisations are made criminally liable if someone else commits an offence, subject to a defence which requires them to prove that they did all they reasonably could to prevent the offending.
In 2017, a “failure to prevent the facilitation of tax evasion” offence was introduced, in similar though not identical terms. There is currently an ongoing Law Commission review which is considering extending the offence to other economic crimes, such as fraud, false accounting and money laundering.
[ymal]
Introduced in 2014, DPAs have dovetailed perfectly with the failure to prevent offence. Under a DPA, a prosecutor will lay but not proceed with criminal charges against an organisation, pending compliance with onerous conditions including a punitive financial penalty and measures to prevent future offending. Applying to various economic crimes, they incentivise corporates to self-report early and unreservedly, with a view to avoiding a criminal conviction and securing a quicker and more certain conclusion than a lengthy investigation and prosecution.
With failure to prevent offences very difficult to defend – and in any event for reasons of commercial certainty – a number of organisations have pursued the DPA route. Nine of the 12 DPAs agreed to date have concerned bribery offences.
At the same time that the regulatory approach is being extended, punishments for regulatory offences have been significantly increased. One factor in these increases is that fines now much better account for the financial circumstances of the organisation – large companies can now expect large fines.
The more fundamental change is that regulatory offences are now treated much more seriously, even when failings are merely systemic. There was a time when it was considered that the criminal law should not be concerned with companies trying to do the right thing. The Robens Report, which underpins the UK’s health and safety law, set out the reasoning:
“The fact is – and we believe this to be widely recognised – that the traditional concepts of the criminal law are not readily applicable to the majority of infringements which arise under this type of legislation. Relatively few offences are clear-cut, few arise from reckless indifference to the possibility of causing injury, few can be laid without qualification at the door of a particular individual. The typical infringement or combination of infringements arises rather through carelessness, oversight, lack of knowledge or means, inadequate supervision or sheer inefficiency. In such circumstances the process of prosecution and punishment by the criminal courts is largely an irrelevancy.
“The real need is for a constructive means of ensuring that practical improvements are made and preventative measures adopted. Whatever the value of the threat of prosecution, the actual process of prosecution makes little direct contribution towards this end ... We recommend that criminal proceedings should, as a matter of policy, be instituted only for infringements of a type where the imposition of exemplary punishment would be generally expected and supported by the public. We mean by this offences of a flagrant, wilful or reckless nature which either have or could have resulted in serious injury…” [1]
However, that approach has long since passed. When serious harm occurs, it is commonplace to see prosecutions of even the most conscientious organisations.
Regulatory offences are now treated much more seriously, even when failings are merely systemic.
All else being equal, organisations which are much less culpable should pay much smaller fines – if prosecuted at all. However, with criminal regulatory offences in place, if harm occurs, the first question is: Why did the company not prevent it?
Cognitive bias is now well understood. Unfortunately, that understanding is rarely applied in the criminal justice system.[2] So, a system which failed to prevent harm risks being judged a bad system. What might be viewed as a remote possibility before the event will afterwards be considered an incident or crime waiting to happen. If people did not follow the required systems, it is assumed to be because the company did not train them, or lead them, or monitor them properly.
Organisations are expected to be able to overcome the everyday failings of people. If they do not, the organisation is not merely held responsible: it is judged to have committed a very serious crime.
In 2020, Airbus entered a DPA with the SFO in relation to bribery offences, covering serious criminality across five jurisdictions between 2011 and 2015. Based on the agreed statement of facts, Dame Sharp noted in her judgment that:
Under the DPA, Airbus agreed to pay €991 million in the UK as part of a €3.6 billion global resolution, involving authorities in France and the United States. It has been reported that the SFO has decided not to prosecute any individual suspects. It remains possible that an overseas prosecutor will.
The extension of the regulatory approach will see more organisations pay highly punitive fines for harm or wrongdoing which they have limited ability to prevent. By one route or another, it may also mean that fewer culpable individuals are prosecuted.
For the criminal law to be fair and robust it should ensure that culpable persons are prosecuted, whether organisations or individuals, and that any punishment imposed is proportionate to that culpability.
Tom McNeill, Senior Associate
Address: 51 Lincoln's Inn Fields, London WC2A 3LZ
Telephone: +44 020 7430 2277
[1] Safety and Health at Work: Report of the Committee, 1970-72, Chairman Lord Robens, p.82.
[2] The author discussed cognitive bias here: https://www.hsmsearch.com/Cognitive-bias-health-safety-investigations.
The world of work has changed. What started out in the UK (and in many other countries too) as a blanket work-from-home (WFH) approach due to lockdown, has now morphed into a seemingly moveable feast. There seems to be a different reaction across the spectrum with respect to how people are currently working. Whilst a few still WFH almost exclusively, the majority of people are mixing things up – a combination of a couple of days in the office, some WFH and even a bit of remote working too.
The legal sector is no different. We have reached the first anniversary of Linklaters’ announcement to adopt a new global agile working policy that focused on remote working. At the core of the announcement was a drive to empower workers at the firm to establish precisely where they decided to work – no faffing about to get the requisite permission.
Many other major law firms adopted a similar stance to working on the basis that remote or agile working did not prevent workers from delivering high-quality work. The practice of having staff WFH at least part of the time looks like it is here to stay. Many people have expressed a desire to continue doing so and many firms continue to be flexible in this respect.
We have reached the first anniversary of Linklaters’ announcement to adopt a new global agile working policy that focused on remote working.
What has been key, though, as firms have tried to adapt to the demands of remote working, has been technology. As IT departments up and down the country struggled to deal with the requirements of a largely disparate workforce, legal firms needed the assurance that their people could seamlessly interact with each other and with their clients. This is an essential requirement for any firm if they are to maintain the high standards of service that their clients have come to expect.
In essence, the bottom-line requirement is to be able to mirror the experience of working at the office but at home or on the move. Easier said than done, perhaps, as firms need to ensure that their people enjoy secure access to resources whilst also enhancing the end user experience. And as we see firms laying the (technological) foundations for their staff to work successfully from home, how can they ensure that their people are working just as productively as they were before? If the quality or quantity of work output is negatively affected, then the whole experiment is doomed to failure. There is a myriad of security and compliance issues that arise from agile and remote working - IT and security teams need to ensure that their people can connect securely, without sacrificing user experience. And as we have already pointed out, all of this needs to be delivered in such a way that service levels to clients are not compromised in any way at all.
So, what does this all boil down to? We believe that persistent connectivity matters immensely. Enjoying persistent levels of connectivity is what allows your people to do more. We all know how frustrating it is when connectivity drops on your device. Equally discouraging is when the device that you are working on fails to find a network to connect to, or if the device decides to switch between different networks. Any such drop in connectivity effectively means that a user is not connected for a small period of time. When the user is not connected even for a short period of time, there is no work output. And if connectivity is persistently bad, then these intervals of lost time will soon mount up. This results in very little work output at all.
There is a myriad of security and compliance issues that arise from agile and remote working.
All of this disruption ultimately delivers poor user experience. Consequently, negative user experience impacts on the quality and quantity of work. So, our notion of persistent connectivity provides the flexibility for firms to overcome these challenges. In essence, with consistent connectivity you can ensure that any technology employed is working precisely as it was designed to work. Under these conditions, your people get to enjoy choice user experience wherever they might be working from. This is getting close to the seamless, “same-as-working-from-the-office” experience that we have already touched upon.
And people are not just WFH. Many might be working in a variety of remote locations or even on the hoof. If you picture your own firm, then how many hours might your people spend on a train, in a hotel or even on a client site? With all of this in mind, persistent or consistent connectivity is critical – you have to remain connected irrespective of where you might be working from. So, it is clear to see that as firms grapple with all of the challenges of an ever-mobile workforce, the notion of connectivity will be key. Indeed, it is difficult to envisage successful remote working without it. Your people will need encrypted and reliable connections that can allow them to quickly and easily reach those business applications and services that are important to them. Nobody likes working in a disconnected environment. People will only get frustrated, and workflow gets disrupted. Nobody wins in this scenario, and it is not conducive to the successful pursuit of remote working practices.
When we talk about the concept of traffic optimisation, we are talking about tweaking the connection performance in a way that allows crucial business applications to run accurately and reliably across networks. If we apply this thought process to mobile traffic optimisation, then we are looking to ensure that applications, resources and connections are adjusted for any weak or intermittent network coverage and are able to roam between wireless networks as conditions and availability alter. When connections deteriorate due to poor performance, then any applications that are essential for getting the job done will suffer accordingly. We are talking about the likes of packet loss (when one or more packets fails to reach its intended destination), jitter (when packets do not arrive in the same order as they were sent) or latency (unnatural delays in audio/video). All of this makes working on the move a messy and complicated affair. Unfortunately, wireless networks operate under highly variable conditions, where you have to factor in things like terrain conditions or mobile tower congestion. These problems do not arise with fixed networks (the norm in any office environment).
[ymal]
So, by optimising the flow of traffic, you are able to mitigate packet loss, which can happen on a regular basis if you are out and about or changing between different networks. Packet loss is effectively data loss, so if you are using a data-hungry application, that application will become increasingly difficult to use as packet loss increases. Packet loss is par for the course for those people who commute by train. Traffic optimisation is a key factor in determining the quality of UX for your people. Make sure that you invest in technology that provides for this.
As your firm considers new technologies in the face of adapting working conditions, it is critical that they understand the importance of secure access to resources but also optimising connectivity to provide an enhanced UX for all the members of your team.
Robert Gibson-Bolton, Enterprise Sales Manager
Address: NetMotion Wireless (UK), Fora, Thames Tower, Station Road, Reading, RG1 1LX, United Kingdom
Telephone: +0 (800) 048 8442
Should our UK law on the Right to be Forgotten and digital obscurity be better aligned with those of Europe? It seems the European Court of Human Rights (which the UK remains part of post-Brexit) agrees that it should.
Europe is setting the example for people's right to digital obscurity by bringing GDPR regulations into force. Successful cases of people invoking their right to be forgotten (RTBF) across Europe and having unwanted information about them removed from online sources is much more prevalent than in the UK. But what is the right to be forgotten?
The RTBF is the legal process of requesting the erasure of personal data from an organisation’s database. More specifically, this ruling – within the European Union only – makes Google responsible for removing “irrelevant” or “outdated” information from search results. Along with other search engines, Google must also consider removing links to data that is inaccurate, inadequate, irrelevant, or excessive when filing a request from an individual about their own search results.
With our personal reputations and career prospects reliant on the results that appear when our names are entered via search engines, it is no wonder many people look to evoke their RTBF.
Europe is setting the example for people's right to digital obscurity by bringing GDPR regulations into force.
So, what are the legalities? The UK General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which was retained from the EU regulation under article 17, cemented this into law and now provides individuals with the right to request erasure of their personal data online. All GDPR rights continue to exist in the UK post-Brexit.
GDPR guarantees the right for people to have their personal data erased. Additional terms also apply:
When an individual contacts an organisation regarding the deletion of their data, the organisation must erase the personal data without undue delay. If the organisation has made the data public, then they also must inform other data controllers who process the data that the individual has made a request to be forgotten, and they must also erase the data, including links and copies.
Under GDPR laws, organisations that fail to comply with such requests face potentially hefty consequences – often to the tune of £20 million in fines or 4% of global annual turnover, whichever is higher.
Organisations often argue against RTBF because they feel the claims are against the data storage and retainment necessary for compliance with a legal obligation or the defence of legal claims. However, where there is no justification, the organisation must comply with the individual’s legal rights. There is no absolute right to be forgotten; it is determined on an individual basis.
[ymal]
In June 2021, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) – the court of the Council of Europe, of which the UK remains part – rejected a freedom of speech complaint brought by Belgian newspaper Le Soir publisher Patrick Hurbain concerning an RTBF judgment in his home country. The ruling ordered him to anonymise the name of a driver responsible for a deadly car accident in 1994 in Le Soir’s electronic archives. The original report of the accident, which caused the death of two people and injured three others, had mentioned the driver’s full name, which has now since been replaced with the letter X.
The Belgian court recognised the right to be forgotten as “integral” to the claimant’s right to privacy and family life. In this case, the claimant was deemed to have served their sentence and been rehabilitated. Leaving the historical information online would create a lasting criminal record and cause indefinite and severe harm to the driver’s reputation.
However, what makes this interesting is that the European Court judgment has now appeared to extend the “right to be forgotten” from search engines to news websites. Not only can RTBF requests ask for information to be removed from search engine results, but redacted and omitted from online news publications as well.
ECtHR decisions can take time to become part of domestic law, and because UK law is now somewhat removed from Belgian law, it is likely to be a long time before we see the same swift decisions in the UK as we have in the EU. The right to be forgotten is a hot topic. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that a UK news publisher could receive a request to amend a historical article by removing their name or identifying data that would no doubt have to be given real consideration.
This is where I argue that it is time for the UK to follow suit. The Belgian case was a clear example of where anonymisation of a person’s name for a spent crime no longer of public interest was correctly ‘forgotten’.
There is no absolute right to be forgotten; it is determined on an individual basis.
If information were to remain in the public domain, it could have severe consequences for someone trying to rebuild their reputation and life. The discussion around the right to be forgotten must continue and swift action taken to implement the processes of the EU to help protect the privacy and respect of UK citizens.
While China, India, Saudi Arabia and the US remain exceptional cases, 15 out of 19 (almost 80%) of G20 countries now have full-fledged statutory data protection laws. By default, virtually all of these laws empower individuals to challenge the continued dissemination of personal data not only when such data may be inaccurate but also on broader legitimacy grounds. Within the EU, Google and other search engines have made an incredible difference by providing the ability to request the removal of personal data via RTBF, which many have now done with great success.
These are all steps in the right direction toward helping individuals invoke their right to be forgotten and prevent damage to their reputation with personal data being removed or anonymised online. Now on the recent case of the ECtHR’s extended ruling on the Belgium RTBF request, I would like the UK legal system to follow suit and do more to safeguard the reputation of people online.
UK courts typically consider judgements from the European Court of Human Rights. It will now be a question of whether UK courts feel that, considering UK law, they need to follow similar judgements, or whether they will lean more towards upholding the rights of freedom of expression from journalists and publications.
Should they not follow suit, we may begin to see people making direct appeals to the European Court of Human Rights themselves if they felt that the UK courts had not ruled appropriately in their case for digital obscurity.
Simon Wadsworth, Founder
Igniyte
Address: 1 Aire Street, Leeds, LS1 4PR
Telephone: +44 (0)203 542 8689
Email: simon@igniyte.com
Website: igniyte.co.uk
Simon Wadsworth is the founder of Igniyte and a global reputation management expert. He has advised chief executives at Mercedes, ITV, Bibby, and Quorn.
Igniyte is a leading authority in online reputation management, working with businesses, brands, high net worth individuals and business owners across the UK, Europe, Africa, the UAE, the US and Canada.
Generally speaking, whistleblowing is the act of disclosing an improper act to someone who has the ability to do something about it. In the parlance of whistleblower statutes, complaining is referred to as “engaging in a protected activity”, which essentially means an employee has observed a specific type of activity (usually an illegal or improper act or failure to comply with the law) and then complained about it. In most employment whistleblower cases, employees are typically required to show retaliation in the form of an “adverse employment action”, which means they have been demoted, fired, or suffered some tangible loss.
There are numerous federal and state statutes providing whistleblower protection to individuals and employees. Most of these statutes apply to very specific industries or practices. For example, at the federal level, individuals who complain of bank, wire or mail fraud at a publicly traded company might seek protection under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act or the Anti-Money Laundering Act, while employees who complain about fraud against the government might turn to the False Claims Act. California itself has approximately fourteen whistleblower statutes, and most cover specific areas of commerce. Whistleblower laws cover the airline, environmental, financial, health insurance, nuclear and public transportation industries.
Whistleblower statutes can be difficult to navigate. The Federal government has attempted to simplify the enforcement of some federal whistleblower statutes by giving enforcement power to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”), which enforces more than twenty whistleblower statutes alone. However, each statute has its own set of reporting procedures and remedies. Some statutes create a private right of action, allowing the complainant to file a lawsuit, while others merely offer administrative remedies not particularly designed to make a Plaintiff whole.
[ymal]
In California there are two sources of protection that offer broad protection regardless of the industry and practice. Equally important, both allow employees to seek a full range of damages in court.
The first is California’s Labor Code Section 1102.5. This statute protects employees who have disclosed violations of federal, state, or local statutes or regulations. There are three provisions in this statute that make it powerful. First, employees do not have to complain to a governmental agency; they can complain to someone at their job who has the authority to address the conduct in question. Second, employees do not have to prove that a violation of the law actually occurred; so long as the employee had a reasonable belief that there was a violation, protection is provided. Finally, employees are protected not just for complaining, but for refusing to participate in illegal conduct.
The second source of protection is California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”). FEHA is a particularly robust statute that, among other things, prohibits discrimination and retaliation in the workplace. Although this statute is not typically considered a “whistleblower” statute, it acts like one. It prohibits retaliation for complaining of harassment or discrimination and/or for refusing to participate in harassment or discrimination. Importantly, it provides employees with the right to pursue economic and non-economic damages in court, as well as punitive damages and attorneys’ fees.
As of January 2021, California Labor Code Section 1102.5 was amended to allow a court to award attorneys’ fees to prevailing employees. The intent behind this amendment was to encourage whistleblowers to come forward. This amendment is particularly significant, given that this statute is by far the most-used whistleblower law in the state.
Retaliation comes in many forms. Some employees are demoted, while others are transferred, forced to quit, or are set up and then fired. Each act is designed to cover up, discredit, or silence the employee. Regardless of the outcome, however, almost every adverse employment action starts the same way; with shunning. Communication becomes unusually formal. The complaining employee is excluded from meetings. Access to information is taken away. Responsibilities are given to others. Shunning can be devastating and, by the time the employee has been fired, anxiety and emotional distress have already affected their lives. Shunning is a lonely, human experience that every juror understands.
As of January 2021, California Labor Code Section 1102.5 was amended to allow a court to award attorneys’ fees to prevailing employees.
Remedies under the various whistleblower statutes vary widely. Most will offer backpay and reinstatement. Others offer rewards. However, not all whistleblower statutes offer an employee an opportunity to seek monetary damages in court, and the road to relief is equally varied. Complaints can be adjudicated administratively, in federal court, or in state court. When multiple statutes apply, an employee may be faced with a tradeoff; do they give up certain remedies in exchange for a better forum or a more relaxed procedure?
Fortunately, employers that violate California Labor Code section 1102.5 may be ordered to reinstate whistleblowers with backpay and benefits (Labor Code section 98.6(b)), pay the employee’s actual damages (Labor Code section 1105), and/or pay a civil penalty of $10,000 for each violation (Labor Code section 1102.5(f), 98.6(b)(3)). As of January 2021, employees may also seek attorneys’ fees if they have brought a successful action under that statute. Similar relief is available under FEHA.
Yes, but in a complex way. Many companies have learned that it is good business to have a complaint hotline in their glossy employee handbook. It makes the company look good. In reality, no company likes to have its operation interrupted by a whistleblower, and I suspect many are happy not to know about violations or non-compliance with the law.
What is changing is how jurors perceive whistleblowers. On one hand, we have become willing to identify inappropriate conduct in the workplace and talk about it. On the other hand, we have become polarised. Terms like “cancel culture”, “microaggression”, “Karen” and “snowflake” have made it into our lexicon, and attorneys have to consider the possibility of whistleblower fatigue. Will a plaintiff be viewed as being overly sensitive? A good attorney will spend time on the employer’s conduct -- the lengths the employer took to cover up the complaint or set the employee up for termination.
While there has been some fine-tuning over the years to address whistleblowing protection in California, what is still unknown is how whistleblowing statutes will change based upon COVID-19 related precautions. Will California adopt specific whistleblowing statutes protecting employees who complain about PPE shortages, non-compliance with social distancing, or mask requirements? Will employees protesting vaccine requirements at work find protection as whistleblowers?
A good attorney will spend time on the employer’s conduct -- the lengths the employer took to cover up the complaint or set the employee up for termination.
We frequently receive calls from employees who suspect that they are being set up for termination because they have said something or refused to do something they felt was not right. I tell my clients that one of the hardest things to do is to be clear and assertive with human resources. While doing so may forever change their comfortable work environment, it takes some of the control away from unscrupulous actors who might be looking to paint a false picture of the employee’s performance, conduct, or behaviour. Doing so also helps employees maintain credibility down the road.
I know we have done a good job when our clients are happy with the result and feel that they made a difference. I know we have made an impression when our opposing counsel starts referring cases to my firm.
Fight back, and when you do, fight hard.
James Urbanic, Founder
Address: 6080 Center Drive, 6th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90045-9205
Telephone: 310-216-0900
Fax: 310-216-0900
Email: jurbanic@urbaniclaw.com
I am James Urbanic. I am the principal attorney with Urbanic & Associates, a litigation firm located in Los Angeles. We are trial attorneys. Although we focus on representing employees who have suffered from retaliation, discrimination, or harassment, we take on cases we believe in. I have successfully obtained a number of large verdicts on behalf of my clients, and in each of those cases I saw something in my client that made me want to help them tell their story to a jury. Opposing counsel often ask me, “How do you decide which cases you want to take all the way to trial?” My answer is pretty simple: I want to take every one of our cases to trial.
The flows generated by the Cape Verdean economy have never been considered sufficient to finance its development, due to various constraints such as the lack of natural resources, the trade balance deficit and the size and division of the territory. Therefore, foreign capital has become a strategic resource in the development of Cape Verde as a way of ending some deficits in the economy.
Thus, foreign investment is of paramount importance to the economy of Cape Verde. It increases Cape Verde's competitive capacity and, by extension, its relevance in the international economy; it increases employment in general terms, as well as creating new types of employment and new jobs; it stimulates employment in other sectors of the economy and therefore improves wage and working conditions. Foreign investment enables partnerships between foreign and national companies, allowing the latter to expand their business. It also increases state revenue through tax contributions paid by foreign companies.
The key regulations are as follows:
- Cape Verde Investment Law – Law no. 13/VIII/2012 amended by Decree-Law no. 34/2013 of 24 S September, which establishes the general bases for carrying out investments in Cape Verde;
- Foreign Investor Statute - Law No. 89/IV/93, of 13 December;
- Tax Benefits Code - Law No. -102/VIII/2016;
- Law No. 38/2013, of 2 October), which creates the Cape Verde International Business Center (CIN);
- Law No. 73/IX/2020, of 2 March, which approves the regime for the realization of direct investment made in Cape Verde by emigrants.
In addition to these legislations in the scope of foreign investment, it is also possible to point out others that regulate incentives of specific sectors, such as:
- Legislative Decree No. 13/2010 of 8 November, which defines the objectives of the country's industrial policy and establishes the principles, means and instruments essential to its pursuit.
- Decree-Law nº 22/2020, which establishes the regime of the status of Tourist Utility and defines the criteria and requirements for its attribution, revocation, expiry and renewal.
- Decree-Law No. 12/2005 of 7 February, which regulates the right to establish international financial institutions in Cape Verde, their functioning and supervision.
The flows generated by the Cape Verdean economy have never been considered sufficient to finance its development.
The countries of the African continent have great ethnic, cultural, social and political diversity, this continent is made up of 54 independent countries, so it is normal that the regulations that regulate the issue of foreign investment are different, varying from country to country. However, regulations may also be the same, varying only in some points.
For example, the investment law of the Republic of Guinea-Bissau resembles Cape Verde's investment law in some points, while varying in others. Both the investment law of the Republic of Guinea-Bissau and Cape Verde offer the same rights and guarantees, namely the freedom to private initiative, security and protection, and the transfer of funds abroad. The resolution of conflicts in both can be undertaken through conciliation and arbitration and recourse to the courts. However, they defer to the incentives offered.
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic that has plagued the world at large since February 2020, there has been a standstill of any foreign investment in Cape Verde in the last 12 months.
A major constraint regarding the attraction of foreign investments is the small size of the Cape Verdean market, which has an impact on insurance. Because of the lack of export diversification and the imposition of the global economy, investors from foreign countries are required to make adjustments with high costs, forcing them to assume greater risks.
There are also constraints regarding the division of the territory of Cape Verde and how its distance from the main markets creates additional costs for the small economy. Transport costs are quite high, both for importing raw materials and for distributing the finished product between islands and especially to international markets. In terms of country management, it requires heavy investments in infrastructure – telecommunications, health, education, transport (including ports, airports and roads) and the installation of administrative machinery, among others, thus making more efficient management impossible.
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic that has plagued the world at large since February 2020, there has been a standstill of any foreign investment in Cape Verde in the last 12 months.
Always seek to collect as much information as possible through lawyers or other competent authorities before starting any investment. View the various possible investment options.
It is wise to invest in a sector understood as the future of the Cape Verdean economy and the development of foreign investment, such as tourism, renewable energies, the ocean economy, the digital economy and creative industries, among others. And above all, do not let yourself be affected by these obstacles; keep trying and persist. Investing in the nation has its advantages, as Cape Verde has an attractive policy of incentives, a rich business environment, a mature democracy, and a modern society with a wealth of transformation, diversity and opportunity. The country has many stories of success and economic progress, not to mention the last and most important factor – sun, beaches and music festivals throughout the year.
Yes. In 2019, there was a project in the portfolio to update the legislation related to the tourism and foreign investment sector, compiling it into a single code. Since the government has been adapting Cape Verdean legislation to new needs after the pandemic, we will certainly have new laws to motivate and attract more foreign investment.
[ymal]
Since I was a child, my dream was to be a lawyer. My grandfather was a proxy for most of his emigrant family and friends; he helped people who were illiterate or with little knowledge in drawing up letters, contracts or other documents, so from an early age I had contact with books and legal subjects. I studied law at the Universidade Clássica de Lisboa in Lisbon, Portugal, where the contact with full professors motivated me even more. I had the opportunity to do my training with a great lawyer, with whom I learned that being a lawyer is to be constantly studying and learning.
What inspires me to deliver the best possible results for our clients is definitely the desire to be useful and make a difference in people's lives.
I have already had some good achievements in my career, from integrating teams in major corporate operations such as being a jury in public tenders and providing advice in the preparation of national legislation, in addition to some victories in lawsuits with great national repercussions. However, I think the best achievement, which represents an international recognition of my work, was being called to be Vice President of the Specialized Commission for the Creation of the CPLP Economic Community Arbitration Center.
Our Office is working hard to be recognized internationally as a specialist in the field of foreign investment, particularly in the field of tourism, in which we provide advice to investors from the initial business feasibility study to its implementation and consolidation in the market.
Carla Monteiro, Founding Partner
Carla Monteiro & Associados
Address: Entrance of Santa Maria, Garantia Building, 1st Left, PO Box No. 107, Santa Maria –Sal Island, Cape Verde
Telephone: + 238 2422510
Fax: +238 2422550
Email: cmonteiro@cmalex.net
Website: cmalex.net
Instagram: Carla Monteiro & Associados | Carla Monteiro
Facebook: Carla Monteiro & Associados, Sociedade de Advogados, RL | Carla Monteiro
Linkedln: Carla Monteiro & Associados | Carla Monteiro
Carla Monteiro is the founder of Carla Monteiro & Associados and a member of the Bar Associations of both Cape Verde and Portugal. In addition to speaking Portuguese, English, French, Spanish and Italian, she is also the co-author of two real estate law guides.
Carla Monteiro & Associados was formed in October 2008 through the partnership of Carla Monteiro and Portuguese lawyer Alexandra Pereira. Since then, the firm has since expanded to include several additional partners, lawyers and associates, delivering excellence in the fields of corporate, tax, insurance, real estate & tourism, litigation and foreign investment.
Pip Wilson, co-founder of amicable, explains the benefits of digitising divorce.
Even though one-third of UK marriages end in divorce, the separation process is complicated by a number of legal and social hurdles. In today’s legal system, one spouse must make an accusation about the other’s conduct, such as adultery or “unreasonable behaviour”. The alternative requires that the couple live apart for two years, to prove they have separated, in all but the legal sense of the word. This means that even when ex-partners have the best intentions, it’s near enough impossible to avoid acrimony when divorcing. Whilst as administrators of the system we know how to file around this, it still leaves those divorcing with a bitter taste in their mouths at the start of an already trying emotional process.
Since 2015, amicable’s mission has been to help couples aiming to ‘untie the knot’ to do so as smoothly as possible, minimising hostility. The digital service works with couples, rather than individuals, to reach cooperative and productive agreements, taking the formal solicitor approach out and making the process as simple as possible for the couple. To make divorce less daunting, amicable removes the alienating legal jargon recurrent in solicitor-led divorce. Putting people at the centre of the divorce process has enabled amicable to develop effective and emotion-conscious technology while curating a process that prioritises ease for prospective couples.
By digitalising divorce, amicable has also been able to significantly reduce financial and time costs to the consumer. This is a much-needed move, as the traditional legal process of divorce averages £8,000 per person for divorce and financial settlement and can reach £40,000 per person if the couple goes to court. By minimising the cost of administrative tasks through automation, a fixed fee divorce model is possible. Making divorce cost-effective allows access to justice for all separating couples; a significant improvement for the industry, as extreme costs can act as a barrier to actioning divorce for many.
The technology at the heart of digital divorce can serve as a hugely helpful interface when tackling painful life moments. The physical separation it provides, as sessions take place over video links rather than in person, eases the emotional strain and in turn reduces the likelihood of argumentative processes. This also has significant knock-on effects regarding the societal stigma associated with divorce; traditional divorce is frequently associated with sensationalist, acrimonious and spectacle-like disagreements. With technology as the calming middleman, supported by amicable’s professional mediators, divorce can be rebranded. Pacifying, and in turn destigmatising divorce, equally improves its accessibility for couples by reducing fear of social judgement.
Convenient and obtainable tech is also essential to reducing the impacts of divorce on wider family members such as co-parenting apps which help parents successfully manage the life change for the whole family. By leaning on mobile digital tools, co-parents can access advice and organisational functionalities on the go. With expertly crafted, bespoke tips available at any time, children of divorce are in the best possible hands to navigate this complex emotional journey. By minimising the destabilising impacts of divorce and reducing the exposure to a negative relationship breakdown, the long-term social justice benefits of democratising divorce cannot be understated.
Although amicable challenges the traditional lawyer against lawyer approach to divorce, amicable has attracted the attention of Sir Ernest Ryder who recently joined as an advisor, bringing with him extensive legal expertise and track record of excellence. With over 40 years of experience on how to ensure the best possible outcomes in divorce, Sir Ernest will be crucial in supporting amicable’s response to the demand created by the No Fault Divorce bill coming into force in April 2022. Bridging traditional with disruptive legal knowledge will ensure divorce is serving all citizens.
Technology is hailed as a great democratising tool across a number of sectors, and divorce is no exception. By removing societal and financial barriers, as well as improving accessibility, collaborative digital divorces are becoming mainstream. This trend will undoubtedly become more pronounced with the imminent implementation of No Fault Divorce. The positive impact of amicable, accessible divorce has transformative potential in terms of social justice and equality - ideals that lie at the very core of purpose-led technology.
Canada, and many other developed countries besides, is struggling under a backlog of criminal and civil cases awaiting their date in court. This has had a knock-on effect for family law, adding unneeded stress to couples and parents during some of the most difficult times of their lives.
This month, we have the pleasure to hear from Laura Bruyer and Tiffany Stokes of Bruyer & Mackay LLP, who have a vision for how the legal profession can rise to meet this challenge. In this article they explore the factors behind the case backlog and how its adverse effects on families in Canada can be mitigated, while also drawing upon Laura’s own career development and Bruyer & Mackay’s plans for future progress.
Even before 2020 there was an immense glut of family law cases in the Canadian legal system, with years-long pipelines for custody trials in some provinces. How did this backlog come about?
There is no one cause that you can blame for the backlog. Changes in the economy, whether good or bad, create work for family lawyers. Many of our clients are competing for limited trial time at the courthouse because there are also other areas of law that need it. Many cases that go to trial require several days of trial time, which adds to the time it takes to get before a judge. Hiring a family lawyer is an expensive step, and there may be times when a client has to self-represent, which can cause delays as they try to navigate a complex system on their own. Our courts have done an excellent job of reviewing family law and trying to implement processes to address the backlog, but it is very challenging because the wave of clients is unrelenting.
What impact have escalating trial delays had on the parents and spouses caught up in them?
More than anything, it contributes to animosity between parents and spouses. Litigation is stressful and overwhelming at the best of times, much less when it is dealing with your everyday life – your children, your finances, and your property. Many clients feel the need to continue to “gather evidence” and be hyper-vigilant toward the other parent or party. Families have trouble healing and working together positively when they have a “litigation cloud” hanging over their heads.
Many of our clients are competing for limited trial time at the courthouse because there are also other areas of law that need it.
In what way has the COVID-19 pandemic and the rise of remote hearings affected the backlog?
The pandemic brought a number of challenges for our clients. First, many clients were navigating the ever-changing public policies and trying to co-parent. This is very difficult if the parents do not agree on how to interpret or implement said public health protocols, and the constant messaging of “creating a bubble” and limiting social contacts was confusing to parents who had custody or parenting schedules in place. This created a lot of litigation because there were so many unknowns, and many parents felt the need to go to court to try and change their parenting schedules to reflect the messaging they received from public health.
In addition to parenting issues, we also had a number of clients who were suddenly out of work. Many clients lost high-earning jobs and therefore needed an urgent adjustment to child or spousal support. This created more and more cases before the court to adjust support, particularly if that support was being enforced through the Maintenance Enforcement Program, as it could only be changed with a court order.
There was a rocky start in getting remote systems in place for hearings. This was to be expected; our generation had never grappled with a pandemic, and it caught so many of us off-guard. Our courts did their best in assessing the need for remote hearings and implemented that technology quickly, but it still limited how fast you could proceed to court and there were definitely delays in the beginning. You had more people competing for fewer spots. Also, appearing before a judge now requires more steps than it used to, which means it takes longer to get into court and is more costly to clients.
In Ontario’s Unified Family Court, family law cases are typically given a court date within 20 weeks after they are deemed ready to procced to trial. Would a wider implementation of this system help to address the litigation backlog in other provinces?
Many of those in our judiciary and members of the family profession have worked hard on implementing a unified family court in Alberta, and we hope that one day it will come to fruition. We believe a unified family court would help streamline systems, which will in turn reduce backlogs. During the pandemic, there were several new procedures implemented that changed rapidly. The rules for the provincial court and our superior court were different. With a unified system, the rules and procedures would be consistent for all families and would be more predictable for lawyers and the public in general. This would avoid missteps and create a lot of certainty and consistency. It would help save costs for clients, and more importantly, it would create greater public confidence in our system.
[ymal]
What advice would you give to families facing a lengthy struggle to have their case heard?
Our advice is to “focus on the big picture”. Litigation is not always the answer, and in fact, we always review settlement and alternative dispute resolution options with our clients before going to court. We offer mediation, collaborative family law, and arbitration in our firm to meet these needs. Sometimes a small gain in property or support does not justify the cost and effort that is expended in court to get there. For parenting, we always tell clients that the most important rule is to do what is in the children’s best interests. Our lawyers and courts are well-versed in the work done by the Alberta Family Wellness Initiative to teach us how conflict and toxic stress harms the development of children’s brains. Lengthy and drawn-out litigation is not in children’s best interests, and it is important that we try to avoid that if at all possible.
Do you expect to see any regulatory changes to address the continuing build-up of cases?
At the superior court level, we have seen may changes implemented, including the introduction of a docket system to triage cases. The goal is to have clients attend an early intervention alternative dispute process, particularly when there are parenting issues, in order to reduce conflict between the parties. The benefit of the docket system is to get each matter into the most appropriate system that can meet the parties’ needs.
In addition, our courts have implemented strict timelines regarding the filing of materials. This is a concerted effort to ensure that scheduled matters proceed in a fair and timely manner. As with most new processes, there is a significant learning curve. Throughout the course of the pandemic, judges, courthouse support staff, lawyers, and clients have had to adapt to ever changing technology and lengthier wait times.
Litigation is not always the answer, and in fact, we always review settlement and alternative dispute resolution options with our clients before going to court.
What do you feel the legal sector could do to ease the burden of the ongoing backlog on the courts and the families affected?
Lawyers can play a major role in this. We all need to work together in reviewing settlement options with our clients, helping them focus on the big picture, giving them confidence in the system, and advising to proceed with litigation only when necessary. The work that you do not see is that, outside of the courthouse, our family law bar is actively working on settling cases and supporting families. Our work is deeply rooted in the law and jurisprudence, but at the end of the day, we recognise that we are helping real families who make up the fabric of our society. Quite often our clients’ goals and interests are not “being right in law” or “winning”, but rather supporting their children’s needs, ensuring their financial stability, and reducing their stress.
Litigation is a useful tool that is sometimes needed, but first and foremost, lawyers must support their clients in finding alternatives to court in order to achieve their goals and interests. One of the best ways to do so is to identify the issues at the outset of a file, direct clients to agencies that can provide support to them (i.e. psychologists, parenting experts, coaches) and encourage them to focus on the future after the initial trauma of separation.
When I was in middle school, my father asked me what my plans were with respect to my post-secondary education. At that time, and without really considering it to any great extent, I indicated that I was going to be a lawyer. I was a huge fan of the British television series Rumpole of the Bailey and had read all of John Mortimer’s stories growing up.
Upon graduating high school, I entered University in a Bachelor of Arts Program majoring in Honours Sociology. At that time, you could still get into law school after two years in an undergraduate program. I entered university at 17 and by the age of 19, I was starting my first year of law at the University of Alberta.
Following graduation, I articled at a large downtown firm in Edmonton, Alberta, before going to work as a general practitioner in a small firm. It was there that I gained significant experience in all matters related to litigation. I originally thought that I would practice primarily in criminal defence work; however, I quickly realised that any contribution I could make was best suited for family law. I dealt with a number of clients that were devasted by separation, ongoing parenting battles, and concerns over their financial security.
In 2005, I met Michelle Mackay when we were on the opposite sides of a very difficult family law file. We decided following that file that we wanted to work together as opposed to opposite each other. In November 2005, I joined Michelle at her firm Gordon Zwaenepoel. Upon the retirement of Marie Gordon and Susan Zwaenepoel, Bruyer & Mackay was formed.
The firm has more than doubled in size since its inception in 2019; we currently have 17 lawyers and an equal complement of support staff. In terms of the workplace, we have taken significant steps to ensure that not only our clients are supported but our staff are as well. This includes counselling support for staff, bringing in a psychologist on a quarterly basis to address issues that affect our staff (i.e., dealing with difficult clients, regular firm outings and team building endeavors, and stressing the importance of time off).
With respect to firm values, we pride ourselves on the following:
When I was approximately eight years old, my parents separated for a period of time. Fortunately for me, they were able to work out their differences and have been married for over 50 years. However, I believe that that experience, which was traumatic at the time, helped shape me into the lawyer I am today. I can empathise with children whose parents are going through a separation, as well as the parties themselves.
In my early days as a young lawyer struggling to build a practice, most of the matters I dealt with were family law in nature. After approximately 8 years of a general practice, I determined that I would focus on family law, given there was a significant need and I felt my skills could best be utilised there.
Since doing so, I have run a significant number of family law trials and appeared many times in front of our Court of Appeal. I have discovered that, if anything, over the last nearly 30 years of practice, the need for competent, caring family law practitioners has only grown. I am very proud that our partnership created a firm to fill that need.
I can empathise with children whose parents are going through a separation, as well as the parties themselves.
I have been involved in a number of trials in which I felt very strongly about my client’s position, the wrongs he/she had suffered, and the need to see justice done. It is those matters that I feel most proud of with respect to my professional achievements.
However, as a whole, my proudest achievement has to be the formation of Bruyer & Mackay. We have been able to attract a high calibre of lawyers wanting to practice at our firm. We can offer the public every available service for their family law matters. Despite exponential growth over the last year, we have maintained a close and cohesive group of lawyers and staff. Significant mentoring of associates ensures that quality client services will be provided for a long time to come.
Given the changes over the last 18 months, which included:
the partners are hoping for a period of relative calm over the next few months. However, we will be continuing to present at the Legal Education Society of Alberta (LESA), teach family law at the University of Alberta, act for children, ensure that each lawyer of our firm carries at least 3 pro bono files, provide free legal information and advice through the Edmonton Community Legal Center, sit on the board of the Association of Family and Reconciliation Courts to improve the lives of children and families through resolution of family conflict, participate on various community fundraising efforts including Habitat for Humanity and the Kids Kottage, and ensure that quality family law services continue to be provided throughout Alberta.
Laura H Bruyer, Barrister & Solicitor
Tiffany S Stokes, Barrister & Solicitor
Address: Suite 201, 11611 107 Avenue, Edmonton, Alberta T5H 0P9
Telephone: +1 780 425 9777
Email: l.bruyer@bruyermackay.ca, t.stokes@bruyermackay.c
Bruyer & Mackay LLP is one of the largest family law firms in Alberta. We pride ourselves on being the leader in family law and offering superior client service and representation. We offer a breadth of family law services including litigation, arbitration, collaborative family law, as well as supporting services.
In addition to the services we provide our clients, we consider ourselves “ambassadors” of family law. We want the public, the judiciary, members of the profession, and those considering law as a career to know that family law is an extraordinary, challenging, and critical area of law. Family law touches upon almost every other area of law – corporate/commercial, real estate, immigration, criminal, human rights and bankruptcy (to name a few) are all areas that impact our cases. You need to be a highly skilled and competent lawyer to do an effective job for your clients and to uphold the administration of justice. You also have to be able to work well with different personalities and support clients who are often in crisis. Our lawyers publish papers, contribute to continuing education efforts, teach as sessional instructors at the University of Alberta Faculty of Law, sit on boards, and provide countless hours of pro bono work. We work to elevate the status of family law.
We are striving to make Bruyer & Mackay a “one stop shop” so that clients, who are going through perhaps one of the most difficult times in their lives, can benefit from a lawyer knowledgeable in separation and divorce and a firm that can also handle their real estate transactions, as well as will and estate planning. In time, we hope to team up with counselling services to ensure clients are fully supported from the outset of their separation.
The German car manufacturer previously asked the US Supreme Court to review an appeals court ruling that permitted two counties to seek diesel-related financial penalties that could end up costing the company billions of dollars. However, this request is still pending.
Back in June of this year, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled 6-1 that the federal Clean Air Act did not preempt state law-based claims that Dave Yost, Ohio Attorney General, is pursuing. The Supreme Court also ruled that it did not prohibit state oversight following the sale of a vehicle or engine, as Volkswagen claims. Ohio claims that the car manufacturer engaged in “deceptive recalls” after vehicles were sold.
In January, Volkswagen and supplier Robert Bosch LLC asked the US high court to reverse a unanimous 9th Circuit Appeals Court ruling that permitted Utah’s Salt Lake County and Florida’s Hillsborough County to seek damages over updates made to polluting diesel vehicles post-sale. In April, the Justice Department was invited to offer its views on the issue.
In 2015, Volkswagen admitted to secretly using illegal software to evade emissions rules. In 2017, it pleaded guilty to conspiracy and obstruction of justice. The car manufacturer settled actions prompted by the emissions scandal for over $20 billion, however, the appeals court found that this did not protect it from state and local government liability.
Theranos, founded by Holmes in 2003, claimed it would revolutionise the medical testing space with the introduction of a new blood diagnostic technology that was capable of performing several tests on a small dose of blood. The medical start-up had reached a valuation of $10 billion. However, it was later found that the company’s claims were largely fabricated, with reports from the Wall Street Journal revealing that Theranos had been overstating the functions of its technology.
Holmes and her former partner and co-president Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani were accused by the US Department of Justice of defrauding both consumers who bought and used the blood tests and investors who believed the start-up would become profitable in the long term.
It is expected that Holmes will lean on a “Svengali defence”, arguing that her role in the Theranos scandal was heavily influenced by an allegedly abusive relationship with Balwani. However, lawyers for Balwani have labelled these allegations as outrageous. Holmes’ former partner will appear in court at a separate trial in February 2022.
The case is likely to take many weeks to resolve, with the court setting aside time into December for proceedings. Holmes has pleaded not guilty to all counts of wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud. If convicted, Holmes will face up to 20 years in prison.
