Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
Your employees are your biggest asset if you own or run an organisation. They will largely determine whether you are a success or a failure.Therefore, you not only have to find ways to incentivise them to perform better, but you also have to recognise and thank employees that are doing a fantastic job. A big misconception is that employees only want financial rewards. There are many ways to reward employees for outstanding performance, including:
If your employees are doing a great job, your organisation should also be performing well. Great performance warrants celebration and it is during these celebrations, and you should thank the best performing employees. One way to recognise the best employees is to offer them prizes for doing well during these celebrations. Everyone in the company will probably attend these celebrations, which makes it an excellent opportunity to recognise employees that are doing well. Almost everyone loves receiving prizes as they are a tremendous extrinsic motivator. It does not have to be a fancy prize, and a gift card or a plaque will do just fine. Functional prizes like phones or cars are even better. The employees will get the adoration of all those in attendance, which is outstanding.
You don’t want to recognise and thank employees that do a good job randomly. You want it to be part and parcel of your company’s organisation. One of the best ways to do so is to set up company appreciation programmes. There are many types of appreciation programmes, including customer appreciation programs, peer appreciation programmes, and others. These recognition programmes are an excellent way for employees to receive due appreciation in a very public way. Peer recognition programmes are often fantastic because they promote teamwork. Colleagues will give the best performing among them rewards which is a wonderful way to reward employees as it comes from those in the trenches with them every day.
Sometimes the best things in life are often the simplest. If you own or run a company, you probably do not get a lot of time to interact with your employees.Therefore, if you have an employee who is performing exceedingly well, you should recognise and thank them with a lavish lunch or dinner. Take them somewhere they would regularly not go and splurge on them. Doing so will give your employee an excellent opportunity for some one-on-one time with an executive. You will also get a personal insight into the employee, which you can only get by interacting face-to-face with them.
There are usually projects that people don’t want in an organisation and others that employees clamour over each other for. You can use the latter as a way to recognise and thank the best-performing employees.Give them the best projects you have, particularly if you find it difficult to decide who to give the projects to. It will be an outright act of appreciation that other employees will notice, which will motivate them to perform better next time.
One of the main goals of working in a large organisation is to climb up the ladder. Unfortunately, the higher you go up the ladder, the fewer the positions. Therefore, if you want to recognise an employee that has been performing well, one of the best ways to acknowledge them is to offer them an opportunity for career advancement. A well-deserved promotion not only benefits the employee but also benefits the company. There are dozens of ways to recognise and thank an employee who has been going above and beyond for your company. The methods above are some of the most potent ones. Feel free to come up with ways that suit you, the employee, and the organisation.
Each day, human lives are lost in car accidents. While the vehicles we drive get safer and easier to manoeuvre with each new version, the human factor remains the weak link of the chain. Distracted drivers (usually by smartphones), driving under the influence, or speeding are only a few factors that lead to car accidents. Sadly, the situation is not about to change any time soon, which is why even extremely careful drivers may get involved in an accident (usually as the victims). This is why it’s important to have access to the right information, to make sure you get proper compensation for your troubles. Still, not every car accident attorney or law firm will be the best fit for your needs. Even more, some may not be a fit for anyone, so here are a few red flags to watch out for:
If the firm or individual you consider hiring as your car accident attorney gets fidgety or evasive when you inquire about their experience with cases like yours, it’s best to reconsider. You want a legal representative that’s upfront about their previous experience in the event of an auto accident, like The Patel Firm, which is a car accident attorney in Corpus Christi. That’s why, even before you set up a meeting, go to their website and check the information they provide. Do they list several methods of contact? Do they post updates in the field and talk about their experiences with customers (making sure to protect confidential data)?
Once you establish the first contact and decide to start a collaboration, are they still available to take your calls and answer your emails? Also, if they do reply, pay attention to who is replying to you - is it the lawyer you hired, or are you talking with their assistant? Some lawyers are extremely busy with cases they consider more important and leave smaller cases (for which they also charge a solid fee) in the care of employees with less experience. If this is the case, it’s best to take your business elsewhere.
A car accident (even a light one, without much damage) is a traumatic experience. Therefore, it’s important to get a lawyer who understands your trauma and can empathise. This aspect is important to establish trust between you (the client) and the law firm (the service provider), but it also helps when trying to settle the compensation. A lawyer who understands your distress will be able to better represent your interests in a legal battle.
Good lawyers and law firms are always well-organised and hyper-focused on even the smallest details. So, if you visit your lawyer’s office and you see mountains of files spread everywhere, that’s a huge red flag. A disorganised attorney can’t be trusted with sensitive documents. You can’t be sure they won’t misplace important evidence or that they won’t overlook important details that could have led to a better settlement.
If a lawyer promises to win your case even before you finish the first meeting, take it as a red flag. Their only interest is to get you to sign the contract, after which they’ll probably pressure you into a settlement you may not be comfortable with. This type of scenario happens with law firms and attorneys who take as many cases come their way, without caring about the customer. They only care about getting paid and finding the fastest way to get there.
The relationship with your attorney should be based on trust, but it takes a bit of time to get to know each other. Therefore, as long as you fully understand the role of a car accident attorney, you can rely on their previous experience (based on hard evidence and reviews) and your gut feeling after the first meeting. Pay attention to any red flags, and you should be fine.
In a court filing on August 26, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, an interim lead class counsel for the software developers who are the plaintiffs, announced that a $30 million fee award squared with the attorney compensation in similar class action settlements. Freed Kanner London & Millen, Saveri & Saveri, and Sperling & Slater are the firms on the plaintiffs’ executive committee.
In 2019, small app developers sued Apple alleging anti-competitive practices. This included the 30% commission the tech giant takes on the sale of apps and restrictions on direct communication between developers and their customers.
As part of the deal, the tech giant will create a $100 million small developer fund from which class members will be able to seek compensation. The remaining funds will be donated to Girls Who Code, a non-profit organisation that promotes gender equality in computer science.
Apple will also extend for three years a 15% commission adopted last year to support small developers who make $1 million or less per year. The tech giant has said it will now allow developers to communicate directly with their customers regarding alternative payment options.
The recent coronavirus surge – fueled in large part by the Delta variant – has given pause to many companies who had loudly stated that they would be bringing their workforces back into the office. Now, they are pushing back those deadlines to return by a couple of months or suspending their plans altogether.
This is to say nothing of the fact that quite a few professionals have decided that they actually prefer working remotely, thank you very much, and are not exactly clamouring to resume their daily commute or otherwise give up the flexibility of working from home. They have not been shy about making their preferences known to employers and intimating that they expect to be able to work remotely at the very least on a part-time basis moving forward.
The net result? Remote collaborative work, as part of a hybrid workforce model, is definitely here to stay. Some analysts predict that managing remote workers and the technologies that enable remote work arrangements will be key business drivers not just for another quarter or two, but all the way through to 2024. However, to optimise productivity across a remote and hybrid environment and to enhance firm-wide business efficiency, legal organisations now need to ensure that their workforce embraces new technologies in a way that tangibly delivers commercial benefit.
Given that technology adoption among employees isn’t a given – in fact, resistance to new tools and technologies in favour of “the familiar” is a fairly common phenomenon in law firms and corporate legal departments – how can these organisations change attitudes, behaviours, and work habits of legal professionals so that they ditch legacy solutions and adopt new technologies and ways of working?
The change management effort needs to be multifaceted. Standard change management tactics like e-Learning, live training, and ongoing communications are critical. Executives have a role to play as well, but their involvement needs to go beyond passive executive sponsorship – read as: funding a project, and then sending out an email or two telling people that they should embrace this new technology – towards management imperative. But how best to get them to make this fundamental shift and see the new technology as an imperative?
The key is to connect the dots between the technology and how it can improve the business in measurable ways. Put another way, management needs to see that technology can assist with performance areas that they themselves are measured on – whether that’s lowering costs, saving time, improving performance, decreasing risk, or some other business metric. Suddenly, with performance as the focus, management has a vested interest in the technology, which in turn will drive adoption.
For example, suppose the rainmakers within a law firm are using Excel spreadsheets to keep track of which companies they’re actively targeting as potential clients. A cloud-based CRM system offers several powerful advantages, not the least of which is that it keeps everyone on the same page about who’s reaching out to whom, especially when people aren’t able to pop their head into someone’s office to ask, “Are you meeting with the exec at Company X this week?”.
However, it’s entirely possible that those rainmakers like their existing spreadsheet system just fine and don’t feel particularly compelled to adopt a new CRM system. Their motto might be “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” It’s up to management to make the case that the new technology allows business development cycles to be completed more efficiently and in less time, thus improving revenue generation for the entire firm.
Alternatively, consider a document and email management system (DMS) that serves as a single centralised repository for all the organisation’s work products. This type of technology was important before the pandemic-related shift towards remote working began, but it’s even more essential when you have knowledge workers and teams highly distributed and no longer coming into one main office. The ability to quickly find just the right document or email rather than having to scour multiple repositories is certainly convenient and reduces a great amount of frustration for lawyers, but how does it benefit the business? It saves time. Every minute that lawyers aren’t spending fruitlessly searching for the document they need is time that can be spent doing higher-value activities. Over a year, the time saving can add up to millions of dollars in productivity gains.This is the benefit that should grab managers’ attention and encourage them to drive adoption among users, ensuring that all critical files are stored in the DMS rather than on their local hard drive or some other improvised solution.
Likewise, encouraging employees to utilise a product that allows them to easily and securely share an important file – a slide deck, an important video clip, an audio recording of a conversation, a document – with clients and third parties becomes easier for managers to do when they connect it to the business impact. What if the ability to implement that functionality directly within legal professionals’ workflow – rather than requiring users to jump out and switch to a third-party application – could save thousands of dollars every year versus the current workflow? Immediately, the users are less inclined to use their traditional workarounds.
In other words, successful adoption of new technology isn’t about managers touting the various “bells and whistles” of the various products, impressive as they might be. It’s about them understanding the real world, measurable benefits it can deliver and the ways it can positively impact the organisation. With this understanding, management can play a key role in driving remote workforce technology adoption.
In a world where remote work promises to be a fixture for some time, firms can’t afford resistance to the adoption of the very technologies that promise to optimise the functioning of the hybrid workplace. The more that legal organisations can ensure that management sees the clear business impact of adopting new technologies, the more successful they will be in driving adoption among their professionals and reaping the associated performance benefits.
About the author: Brian Jones is Senior Director of Customer Adoption at iManage, the company dedicated to Making Knowledge Work, where he leads a team of professionals focused on the art and science of driving customer success.
Ridesharing is a transportation service that allows passengers to use an app to book a driver immediately through their smartphones. Many transportation companies use this method, but the most prominent are Uber and Lyft. Both drivers and passengers admit that, while it’s convenient, accidents can still happen. Drivers can sustain injuries as well and will need the assistance of car accident lawyers in several ways.
Passengers aren’t the only ones who’ll need help during an accident. The driver of the ridesharing service can also be hurt. They could be a responsible driver and were only involved in a car crash through the fault of another driver. They also need compensation to pay for medical bills and loss of property. Suppose you’re an Uber or Lyft driver using your vehicle. In that case, you can enlist the help of car accident lawyers to push for injury and property damage compensation. The right lawyer will help you get what you need from your company and the at-fault party.
An injured passenger can demand compensation, and when that happens, you, as the ridesharing driver, will need an accident lawyer. It’s especially true if you don’t have the means to provide compensation for medical bills. The passenger may also likely go after the Uber of Lyft company. They have insurance policies as a means of protection for both the drivers and the passengers. Various states are requiring these companies to maintain these insurance policies. In California, they take effect immediately as soon as the transaction between the passenger and the company occurs. Note that the involvement of your personal auto insurance may depend on your insurance company.
If you get into an accident, the transaction between you and the passenger makes you a commercial driver. Depending on your insurance provider, you might or might not be able to use your insurance to pay for claims partially.
Accidents can cause injuries, and the worse ones can lead to disablement. Not only does a driver lose a job, but a sense of normalcy as well. A car accident lawyer can make a deal with insurance companies on your behalf. They use knowledge and expertise to the best of their abilities to push for a settlement, even when the case reaches court.
Accident attorneys, sometimes with a team of paralegals, may collect proof to establish liability after the accident. Experienced lawyers have years of navigating complicated car accident cases. They also know what coverages will come into play in a particular case.
Car accident lawyers will negotiate for the following:
Check the condition of those involved. Your priority is to find out if injuries are sustained during the accident. If you feel well enough, call the emergency hotline as soon as possible. Don’t prolong calling for help as injuries may worsen. EMTs that’ll arrive on the scene will help determine the severity of injuries, as well as help provide documentation, along with other health professionals.
After seeking medical assistance for your passenger and yourself, do your best to recall important details during the accident. Gather enough evidence if your healthcare professional decides that you’re well enough. Taking photos will also provide additional proof. You can do this if you feel well enough or seek the help of your attorney.
Include the following information in your report:
Do some research on the best accident lawyer in your area who can help you navigate your case if you haven’t yet. Bring your detailed report and answer questions truthfully. Your attorney will advise you if your case is eligible.
If the lawyer informs you that your case is eligible, they’ll also tell you that you can file for a rideshare claim, which is entirely up to you. They’ll explain the details to you as clearly as they can, including the benefits of seeking rideshare compensation. It’s because your auto insurance company may not cover specific damages. They’ll also be able to help you secure payment even if there are no passengers in your car at that time.
Ridesharing accidents can occur anytime and with anyone, but some situations can complicate a case, especially when determining who is really at fault. When you’re a driver who gets involved in an accident, it’s always best to approach a car accident lawyer who can give you the best counsel, so you’ll know where you stand in the case.
Texas-based Data Engine Technologies LLC, a subsidiary of Acacia Research, first sued Mountain View California-based Google in 2014, claiming that its Google Sheets spreadsheet programme infringed patents related to using notebook-style tabs to arrange and display information in three-dimensional electronic spreadsheets.
However, under the patents’ definition, Google Sheet does not count as a “three-dimensional spreadsheet”, wrote US Circuit Judge Kara Stoll for a unanimous three-judge panel. The judges also rejected Data Engine Technologies LLC’s argument for an interpretation of a “three-dimensional spreadsheet” that differed from what it raised when it was defending the patents’ validity.
Previously, the Federal Circuit had found that the patents at issue were valid in 2018. This reversed a 2016 decision to invalidate the patents at Google’s request as the claims were directed to abstract ideas.
It is this specialisation that makes you understand the dynamism in the field. You sharpen your knowledge even more with time, thus being better-positioned to give clients the best legal services. The benefits go beyond this.
Many top lawyers are practising in the field and making tremendous achievements in serving clients. Many top-class graduates from world-class law schools are entering the job markets as well. This means the level of competitiveness in the field of law will continue to rise more. Specialising in a particular field will make you be on the safe side. Take personal injury law as an example, and if you focus on accident-based lawsuits, it makes you understand what lawsuits of that nature are for there to be a success. The specialisation at the end gives you a sense of identity.
As a law firm, you will find it necessary to advertise yourself at some point. It is easy to market yourself as a competitive firm. It becomes even more effortless when you are a firm with a niche. You will not struggle in targeting your audience, which makes you achieve a high conversion rate. This means every marketing effort will materialise; hence, your circle of clients will increase more within no time. Also, it becomes simple to increase organic traffic when doing online marketing, especially when you create a specialised website. Fit in the right keywords and be sure of gradual growth. Again, consider making every information of your website footprints tracing back to you. This is where you include details on where your firm operates. If you are an Atlanta car accident lawyer, make your online users know about this. Also, have a webpage with comprehensive details about your fields of specialisation and contacts.
Clients are getting more and more informed about the aspects to consider when choosing lawyers. Most of them are aware of how beneficial it is to find specialised advocates. Therefore, there is a high chance of them coming for your assistance as a law firm majoring in a particular field. Also, within a niche, there are a fewer number of companies than you. This means that the level of competition is also within a smaller group. Therefore, if you amp your service delivery, you can be sure of attracting many clients within a short time. As a lawyer, you will not have to compete with all lawyers in the industry but rather a few in the specialised field.
After choosing your legal niche, the next thing you will find yourself in is researching more. This is to build more knowledge in making your clients get the best assistance. The learning makes you get to the roots of the lawsuits, which is an advantage to you. This is as you compare to a generalised attorney out there. With your vast knowledge, you can now be a good information source in the industry. Dedicate your time in sharing your experiences and expertise in the niche. Write blogs or articles and keep your readers well-informed by providing relevant content. They will end up waiting for more hence developing an attachment to your legal practice. Also, have a firm’s catalogue or newsletter, which is informative if you can create a chance for your clients and other public members to engage and seek clarification from you on different matters.
As a lawyer, you will always feel proud when you see your following increasing. There is no better way of doing this than specialising in a particular legal niche. Many benefits emanate from this, such as gaining more knowledge. It also makes it easy to market yourself.
Alex Hamilton-Baily, Partner in the Legal and Professional Services Practice at Odgers Berndtson, explains what you need to know before joining one of the Big Four as a lawyer.
Last year, Deloitte doubled the size of its UK legal practice with the acquisition of Kemp Little. Going from just eight UK partners to 29, the acquisition marked another step into the territory of traditional law firms by one of the Big Four. Of course, this is nothing new. For many years, the Big Four have been encroaching on the legal sector and growing their own legal offering. However, as the professional services sector and the types of services clients demand from it evolves, more and more senior lawyers view the Big Four as a viable next step in their career.
There’s no doubt that moving from a law firm to one of the major accounting and consulting firms can be an exciting and rewarding next step in a lawyer’s career. However, it’s not without its challenges and there are cultural, political, and organisational differences that a lawyer should consider before making the jump. Below are five things you should know if you’re thinking about joining one of the Big Four as a lawyer:
Many general counsels still hold the view that they need to work with specialists. That is, they want to keep their legal and accounting services separate, rather than working with a firm that has incorporated these under one umbrella. Law is often viewed as the ‘third child’ of the Big Four, who are known for accounting and consulting. Whereas with law firms, among clients there’s the perception of deep expertise because they only specialise in the legal field. There also remains a perception of conflict – despite the Big Four being masters in the art of conflict management.
This will undoubtedly depend on the client, and many consulting clients do want ‘end-to-end’ services, which includes legal services. However, any partner exiting a law firm shouldn’t automatically expect to bring all of their clients with them. Some of them just won’t want to receive legal services from an accounting and consulting firm.
While some clients will always go to a law firm for legal advice, the way some general councils buy legal services is changing. Increasingly, they don’t want to work with a single law firm for all of their legal requirements but will instead segregate their legal services depending on need and cost. A general council may have a law firm on retainer for certain transactional services but then choose a different law firm when carrying out a critical M&A deal. This has begun to provide opportunities for the Big Four, particularly at the transactional level where they can pick up a lot of mid/low value but high-volume work. The Big Four are incredibly powerful at doing what they do best – leveraging scale and cross-selling opportunities across service lines. They expect this of their partners, so if this type of business-building is in your DNA, there are few better places to do it.
The setting of the Big Four is often described as a private practice but without all the politics. The culture is far more collaborative, and it can feel somewhere between a traditional private practice and working in-house. The Big Four are also learning and development organisations and commit a lot of resources to training their people. ED&I and ESG are a big part of this commitment and the Big Four invest in these areas to an extent that most law firms can’t compete with.
The Big Four have built working environments that can be very different from most legal practices and lawyers who have become accustomed to using ‘sharp-elbows’ throughout their careers would do well to interrogate the culture before joining one of them. What’s more, in a law firm a senior partner will most likely have a lot of influence over the organisation. In one of the Big Four, they will become one of hundreds of other partners, making them a small cog in a very large machine. And while the Big Four are very different from law firms, they are also different from each other. You should investigate each individual brand and culture before considering a move.
The Big Four operate with a client-oriented services setup and offer globally integrated business solutions. The work is often international and cross-border in nature, and they pump resources into client relationship management, marketing, and business development. Because of this, the Big Four can provide a one-stop-shop when it comes to business solutions, making them attractive to many organisations. Lawyers working for one of the Big Four will have access to an unrivalled business development and marketing machine that can make it easier to win work and build their client base. This is something that even the top legal firms cannot compete with.
Part of the attraction of working in the legal sector is the prestige and recognition of becoming a partner in an established law firm, particularly a magic circle law firm. The same prestige and recognition aren’t something lawyers can expect to receive if they move over to one of the Big Four. Instead, they will join an organisation that has invested aggressively in legal technology and its legal product line. While this may not have the same 'prestige' as the traditional legal field, it certainly makes it a very interesting place to work.
Increasingly, the Big Four are winning a lot of work that has historically fallen into the laps of magic circle law firms and are even being placed onto the legal panels of FTSE 100 companies. What’s more, they’ve made some significant talent hires in recent years and as more lawyers join their ranks, perceptions around prestige and depth of expertise is likely to dwindle. Traditional law firms are a very long way from going out of business, but this is a trend that they cannot be complacent about.
Over the past decade, the legal aid system has been dramatically impacted by financial cuts. The 2013 Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act (LASPO) saw £350 million knocked off of the £2 billion legal aid budget, resulting in vast numbers of people losing access to much-need legal support. Perhaps unsurprisingly, it has been the UK’s marginalised and vulnerable groups who have felt the impact of these cuts most heavily, as new research from Bolt Burdon Kemp confirms:
According to Bolt Burdon Kemp, 80% of British people had access to free or affordable legal help in 1949. By 2007, this figure had dropped to 27% and as further austerity measures came into play in 2013, this figure dropped further still. Unsurprisingly, the UK’s poorest citizens are amongst those hit hardest by cuts to legal aid.
The table below, compiled by Bolt Burdon Kemp, shows the English Indices of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) 2019 rank scores across regions in England and their legal aid expenditure in 2019/20.
| Region | Sum of IMD rank | Expenditure (£’000s) |
| North East | 21,451,474 | 45,008 |
| Yorkshire and the Humber | 47,622,872 |
88,459
|
| East Midlands | 47,662,971 |
57,915
|
| West Midlands | 50,202,889 |
83,443
|
| South West | 59,490,696 |
66,812
|
| North West | 60,694,509 |
87,954
|
| East of England | 68,181,747 |
50,505
|
| London | 73,480,048 |
231,784
|
| South East | 110,593,358 |
40,451
|
There are several reasons as to why a specific region may have a high legal aid expenditure. Firstly, it may be that the region has a high percentage of legal aid providers, such as law firms or not-for-profit organisations. Secondly, the types of cases in the region may be more likely to fall under the reduced scope for legal aid following LASPO coming into effect in 2013. Cases still covered by legal aid include environmental law, mental health law, asylum, neonatal clinical negligence, child welfare, eviction, and judicial reviews. Thirdly, and perhaps most predominantly, a specific region is likely to have higher legal aid expenditure if it has a large percentage of financially disadvantaged people.
Speaking to The Guardian in 2019, campaigner Norma Hornby said: “Both Lady Hale, the UK’s senior judge, and Sir James Munby, the former most senior family court judge, have expressed concerns about the lack of access to justice for those involved in civil cases who cannot afford a lawyer.
The fact that such high-profile judges should highlight the impact of the 80% reduction in legal aid since 2012 correlates with Amnesty’s 2016 report which states that “cuts to legal aid have decimated access to justice for thousands of people”. Those seeking to access court processes through self-representation usually learn that this is a stressful and difficult process and many are driven into debt to fund lawyers and legal advisers.
Lady Hale’s appeal for public donations towards the Personal Support Service is very worthy but once again charity is expected to compensate for the government’s punitive austerity measures.”
It is not just the UK’s poorer citizens who have been hit hard by legal aid cuts. In 2015, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) published a report that highlighted the disproportionate impact of the LASPO cuts on ethnic minority groups. The demographics below — of those who receive legal aid — reinforce this, demonstrating that the Black, Asian and minority ethnic group is featured significantly more than white groups. From 2012 onwards, the UK government’s legal aid client diversity data shows that that has remained the case for the past 8 years:
| Year | BAME | White |
| 2012-13 | 73% | 27% |
| 2013-14 | 73% | 27% |
| 2014-15 | 71% | 29% |
| 2015-16 | 72% | 28% |
| 2016-17 | 73% | 27% |
| 2017-18 | 73% | 27% |
| 2018-19 | 73% | 27% |
| 2019-20 | 72% | 28% |
Table by Bolt Burdon Kemp
Speaking to The Guardian ahead of the LASPO cuts in 2010, Emma Scott, Acting Director of Rights of Women said: “We know already that in family law women are the majority of applicants for legal aid. In 2006, 62% of all applications for legal aid were for women.
If you remove legal aid for women to sort out the finances after marriages break down, we know it's really difficult to represent yourself. We say ultimately it will increase women's poverty because they will not be able to reach satisfactory arrangements."
In 2013, the UN Committee of the Eradication of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) expressed concerns that the LASPO cuts “unduly restrict women’s access to legal aid” because they eliminate the areas of law upon which women rely on most heavily. In response to the CEDAW’s concerns, a report was published by the EHRC which in turn highlighted several worrying findings. With divorce proceedings only covered by legal aid where there had been domestic violence, the EHRC’s report revealed that victims of abuse were being forced to prove that they had in fact been abused in order to access funding for legal advice and representation. Where victims managed to successfully obtain evidence, it would expire after a two year period. At this point, the woman in question would then be asked to regather her evidence. Where legal aid was not available, victims were left to confront their abusers alone in court.
In 2016, Rights of Women successfully challenged the regulations that specified the type of evidence women were expected to produce to prove abuse. However, the burdens on women caused by legal aid cuts remain significant. Within its report, the EHRC highlighted the exclusion of employment law from civil legal aid. Research by the EHRC showed that over 10% of mothers surveyed said they left their job either because they had been dismissed, made redundant, or were made to feel as though they had no choice but to leave. Such women were barred from accessing legal aid to fight their former employers for gender discrimination.
While some believe austerity was the right policy for the United Kingdom, LASPO has left many without the access to legal support that they desperately need. Legal aid cuts have disproportionately affected those on lower incomes, BAME groups, and women as well as other minority groups. In order to protect and support Britain's most vulnerable citizens, the legal aid system requires urgent reassessment and significant reform. If not, society’s most vulnerable and disadvantaged group will be hit even harder.
On Friday, US District Judge Haywood Gilliam Jr certified a class of investors who purchased shares in Lyft’s IPO. The judge rejected the company’s argument that individual inquiries were required to demonstrate whether investors were aware of the issues before buying in.
Investor Rick Keiner’s lawsuit criticises Lyft, its officers, and directors for failing to disclose what he calls a “pervasive” problem of sexual assaults by drivers as well as brake issues with its bike-share fleet. Keiner argues that Lyft omitted the information as it attempted to position itself as a more socially responsible company than rival Uber. In an attempt to convince the judge to reject class status, Lyft highlighted its interviews with some investors who said they had been aware of the company’s issues before buying in.
However, the judge said the interviews only demonstrated a general awareness of the issues and did not defeat the plaintiff’s claims.
