Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
Paraquat is a herbicide which has been sold since the early 1960s to eradicate weeds. It has been extensively used in agricultural areas throughout California, including the Central Valley, Sacramento Valley, Imperial Valley and Inyo County. It has also been used widely in the Midwest and in the Mississippi Delta.
Exposure to paraquat is dangerous as it can cause Parkinson's disease. People who are regularly exposed to paraquat through direct exposure and overspray exposure can develop Parkinson's disease as a result. We represent many clients who have lived on a farm adjacent to where paraquat was routinely sprayed or live in a residential area next to agricultural fields where paraquat was regularly applied.
The legal recourse is to file a lawsuit against the manufacturers. We are actively filing lawsuits against the major manufacturers of paraquat, including Chevron and Syngenta. Paraquat is also known by many brand names including Gramoxone, Blanco, Chevron, Devour and Helmquat.
People who are regularly exposed to paraquat through direct exposure and overspray exposure can develop Parkinson's disease as a result.
The basis of our lawsuits is the failure to warn of the specific health risks associated with paraquat exposure. We believe the manufacturers knew or should have known that paraquat exposure is linked to an increased risk of Parkinson's disease.
We are representing clients all over the country who have been exposed to paraquat and were subsequently diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease or who have developed Parkinson’s symptoms. We are handling cases on behalf of individuals who have worked in agricultural fields, lived close to agricultural fields where paraquat was sprayed, or those who purchased or applied paraquat.
We intend to prove that Paraquat exposure caused our clients’ Parkinson’s Disease symptoms.
Cases are currently moving through federal and various state courts throughout the country. A Multiple District Litigation (MDL) was recently established in St. Louis. There is a California State Court action as well. Litigation is now entering into an active phase. Nadrich & Cohen and its partners are in leadership positions in all of the major cases.
I recommend that the person reach out to Nadrich & Cohen. We offer a free consultation and can advise him or her of their legal options. We have an entire team dedicated to investigating and pursuing our clients’ paraquat claims.
Jeffrey Nadrich, Managing Partner
Nadrich & Cohen Accident Injury Lawyers
Address: 12100 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 1250, Los Angeles CA 90025
Tel: (310) 826 8082
Email: info@personalinjurylawcal.com
Website: personalinjurylawcal.com
Nadrich & Cohen is a specialised personal injury law firm serving clients throughout California and nationwide. Its lawyers are skilled in navigating complex cases and have recovered over $350 million on behalf of their clients over nearly three decades.
Jeffrey Nadrich is the founder and managing partner of Nadrich & Cohen. He is well known nationally for his high standards of honesty and is a frequent speaker on all aspects of personal injury law. He also mentors other lawyers and helps them to develop successful business practices.
The main features of equal pay law in the UK were established by 1984 (and left substantially unchanged by the Equality Act of 2010). A woman and a man have the same employer, or associated employers. One of them, the claimant – usually the woman, but not always – is paid less than the other (the comparator) or has terms of employment which are inferior in some other way. The claimant submits an employment tribunal claim. The first question for the tribunal involves a comparison of the two jobs – not the job holders – to determine whether or not the claimant’s job matches up to the comparator’s job in one of three ways. Has it been given an at least equivalent rating under a job evaluation scheme (JES)? Are the two jobs similar enough to be ‘like work’? Or is the claimant’s job of at least equal value to the comparator’s job?
If the claimant’s job satisfies one of these tests, there are further questions for the tribunal, provided that the employer has raised a ‘material factor’ defence. Has the employer given a credible explanation for the difference in pay or other terms? Has the employer also shown that the difference in gender formed no part of the reason? If the answer to both questions is yes, the employer can still lose, if the tribunal decide that the relevant pay practice involves indirect sex discrimination. In the early days, a common practice which was rarely upheld was to treat part-time workers less favourably than full-time workers, for example by excluding them from occupational pension schemes.
If the claimant succeeds in the claim, her (or his) pay and other contract terms are raised to the level of the comparator’s and back pay is awarded.
The main features of equal pay law in the UK were established by 1984 (and left substantially unchanged by the Equality Act of 2010).
Why did it take until 1984 for these main features to be established? It was 1970 when the Equal Pay Acts were passed (there was one for England, Wales and Scotland and a separate but very similar one for Northern Ireland) and December 1975 when they came into force. And why were the words ‘equal value’ highlighted in the opening paragraph? The answer is that in 1970 the UK government had considered and rejected the concept of equal value (or comparable worth as it is known in the USA). However, in 1973 the UK joined the European Economic Community (which much later became the European Union). Equal pay for equal work was a key and overriding principle of community law and in 1975 a Directive added the words ‘or work of equal value’. The Equal Pay Acts were eventually (from January 1984) amended to comply with this Directive.
Detailed procedural rules were brought in at the same time and have subsequently been amended more than once. The purpose of the equal value exercise is to identify and compare the demands of the two jobs under a range of factors, such as the qualifications and experience required to do the job, the various responsibilities placed on the job holder, the physical and communication skills required, the degree of independence granted to the job holder, the working conditions and the demands in terms of physical, mental or emotional effort. The tribunal normally has the benefit of a report by an independent expert (IE). It is a common fallacy that the IE decides the question of equal value. In fact, the decision rests with the tribunal. I chaired two hearings in which we had a ‘battle of experts’, the IE and one for each party, and in one of those cases our conclusion was the opposite of that recommended by the IE.
[ymal]
Many employers, particularly large organisations, have a JES in place. A JES, if it is analytical, can be either a gateway or a brick wall for claimants. As already mentioned, it answers the job comparison question in the claimant’s favour if the claimant’s job has been given at least an equivalent rating. On the other hand, if the comparator’s job has been given a higher rating, then the claimant cannot pursue an equal value claim - unless the JES can be successfully challenged. In the NHS litigation, a tribunal which I chaired rejected a challenge to a JES which covered nearly a million jobs. Several thousand claimants who relied on comparators in higher grades then withdrew their claims. On the other hand, there were successful challenges to a JES in some of the large local authority cases. Key questions for large organisations are whether to introduce a JES if they don’t have one and whether an existing JES will stand up to scrutiny.
There have been no fundamental statutory changes to equal pay since 1984, not even under the Equality Act). However, in 1993 a decision of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) was of huge importance to many large organisations and their employees. In the Enderby case, which involved claims by speech therapists, the ECJ decided that paying more for a job done predominantly by men than for a job of equal value done almost exclusively by women can be unlawful indirect discrimination, unless objectively justified. The fact that there were separate negotiations for the two jobs, conducted in absolute good faith, was not sufficient justification. Subsequent cases established that the statistical gender differences between the two workforces need not be as extreme as those in the Enderby case.
A JES, if it is analytical, can be either a gateway or a brick wall for claimants.
The Enderby principle underpinned the tens of thousands of equal pay claims against local authorities in the first decade of this century, the much smaller number of NHS claims and now the increasing number of claims by staff working in supermarkets, whose comparators are employees working in the employer’s distribution centres. The principle is relevant mainly to large organisations, because they are the employers most likely to have aggregations of women in some jobs and men in others.
An apparently inevitable aspect of the multiple equal pay claims has been that it could take many years for claims to be concluded. This is largely because of sheer weight of numbers. It is a huge administrative task for the lawyers on each side to prepare a case for hearing - for example selecting the most appropriate lead claimants and comparators, sifting through thousands of pages of documents and assimilating new claims as they come in.
Until now, delays have also been caused by a particular preliminary issue. Can claimants in one establishment rely on comparators who are fellow employees in a different establishment? In the Asda cases, the first claims were made in 2014, but the preliminary issue was not finally resolved in favour of the claimants until May 2021. However, that decision, and the Court of Justice decision in favour of the Tesco claimants the following month, have made it very unlikely that future cases will get bogged down on this issue.
An apparently inevitable aspect of the multiple equal pay claims has been that it could take many years for claims to be concluded.
The UK has now left the EU. Future changes to EU law will not apply to the UK and there will be no further references to the Court of Justice from the UK. However, the EU law which was part of UK law on 31 December 2020, including the Enderby principle, will remain part of UK law, unless and until changed by Parliament or by the Supreme Court.
Employers should bear in mind that Enderby type cases are not the only challenges. They need to be aware of equal pay practices which could be indirectly discriminatory even as between employees doing the same or similar jobs. Equal pay cases have also been known to succeed simply because employers don’t understand their own pay systems or can’t explain why one person is paid more than another. Large organisations are particularly vulnerable, because of the greater likelihood that more than one person will have been involved in making decisions about pay. Accurate and detailed record keeping is essential.
Michael Malone, Fellow, CIArb
Contact Steve Walker, Lead Civil Clerk
Address: Trinity Chambers, The Custom House, Quayside, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 3DE
Tel: +44 0191 232 1927
Fax: +44 0191 232 7975
Email: SteveW@trinitychambers.co.uk
Website: www.trinitychambers.co.uk
Trinity Chambers is one of the leading sets of barristers’ chambers in the North of England. Regularly recommended in the Legal 500 and Chambers and Partners Directories, with Chambers in Newcastle, Middlesbrough and Leeds, Trinity barristers and Silks deal with cases across the UK.
Michael Malone is a retired employment judge. He is a CEDR accredited mediator and a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators. He is based at Trinity Chambers, Newcastle, to undertake mediations (across the whole range of contractual, commercial and employment disputes) and also early neutral evaluation in equal pay and other employment cases. He is also willing to give in house briefings, to lawyers, HR professionals and others, on equal pay generally or on specific aspects of equal pay law.
Being on the wrong side of the law can be scary, especially when you might be facing drug charges, a DWI or DUI, or something equally as serious. While your thoughts might be on jail time and the severe consequences of your actions, it can also be worth thinking about hiring a defence lawyer, especially if any of the following situations play out.
As you may not be experienced with criminal law or how it works, contacting a criminal defence attorney can be crucial as soon as you have been arrested or are under investigation for a crime like a DUI.
Serious penalties can be associated with such a crime if you are convicted, such as jail time, losing your driver’s license, and fines. Even though you may be told legal intervention isn’t required in the early stages, it can be. Your lawyer can ensure that your constitutional rights are being protected in state and federal criminal cases.
Depending on the charges you’re facing, you may see the value in hiring a lawyer to represent you during the criminal trial process. For example, if you’re facing a sex offence, you may hire a sex offence lawyer or a DVPO attorney for a breach. They can use their experience within the judicial system to provide you with the best possible outcome, which might be reducing your sentence or getting the charges dropped altogether.
You may require the help of a criminal defence lawyer if you believe something is unfair enough to require filing a motion. For example, if the only evidence tying you to a crime was gathered through force, you may request that your Haywood County lawyer file a motion to suppress evidence. This is not something you can typically manage independently, as suppressing evidence in serious crimes can involve cross-examining the arresting police officer.
Fairness can also extend to your previous convictions. You may be able to file a motion to strike a prior conviction for the chance to benefit from a less severe penalty. Again, this can require the help of an experienced lawyer.
An expert witness is a professional in a particular industry that can cast doubt over your innocence or guilt. If you are aiming for the best outcome possible, you might hire a lawyer who can find expert witnesses to add strength to your case. It’s worth noting that many DUI trials involve an expert witness to prove the charges against you, so there’s no harm in helping yourself by doing the same thing.
If you’ve never been on the wrong side of the law before, it’s only natural to be scared, stressed, and unsure about what to do next. The police might tell you that you don’t need a lawyer, but they may also cause you to say something that can be used as evidence against you. To avoid uncertainties and potentially put you in a better position to achieve the best outcome, contact a lawyer as soon as possible. They can provide you with helpful information so that you understand what steps to take next.
The right time to hire a criminal defence lawyer is sooner rather than later. The faster you make the call, the quicker you can be supported and guided through the sometimes-daunting legal system.
Johansson claims that her salary was based on the film’s box office performance, which opened strong in the United States with $80million. However, the second week saw a sharp 67% decline, the steepest second-week decline of any Marvel Cinematic Universe release. Exhibitors have blamed the simultaneous release of Black Widow on Disney+ for the drop.
In March, Disney announced that Black Widow would go to cinemas while simultaneously being available to rent on its streaming service for $30. The studio said it saw a profit of $60 million from rentals in the film’s opening weekend. Its global haul currently sits at $319 million, a significantly below-average performance compared to other Marvel releases.
According to Johansson’s complaint, her lawyers reached out to Disney back in 2019 with concerns about the plan to give Black Widow a multi-platform release. After the release strategy was changed, they then attempted to renegotiate Johansson’s contract.
John Berlinski, an attorney at Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP, said that it is unlikely that this will be the last case where Hollywood talent stands up to Disney and that, no matter what Disney may pretend, it has a legal obligation to honour its contracts with actors.
Back in May, Disney’s CEO Bob Chapek defended the company’s release strategy, stating that flexibility was important and that Disney was attempting to offer greater choice to its customers. In a recent statement, the company fired back at Johansson, claiming that there is no merit to the filing.
Two cases dating back to August 2018 were considered by the Federal Court of Justice. Facebook had deleted comments that criticised Muslim migrants and other people of immigrant origin. The social media giant also suspended the users’ accounts. However, the Federal Court ordered Facebook to restore the posts, ruling that Facebook was not entitled to remove the posts or suspend the accounts under its April 2018 conditions of use. The conditions of use prohibited users from violating community standards and banned hate speech, however, “hate speech” was not clearly defined under the conditions.
The court said that the social media giant is, in principle, entitled to set standards that exceed legal requirements to reserve the right to delete posts and suspend user’s accounts. However, at a bare minimum, Facebook must commit to informing users about the removal of a post or provide advance notice of suspension and the reason for suspension.
In an emailed response, Facebook said it welcomes the Federal Court’s ruling.
A decade on from the Bribery Act coming into effect, Aziz Rahman considers whether or not it has lived up to the hopes and expectations that surrounded its arrival.
It is important to remember that when the Bribery Act was first proposed, its strongest advocates built it up as being the legal equivalent of a silver bullet, capable of removing a large proportion of the wrongdoing that exists in international business. As recently as two years ago, it was being referred to by members of the House of Lords as the international gold standard for anti-bribery legislation.
As it is ten years since it came into effect, perhaps now is the time to assess whether it is deserving of gold, silver or even bronze status. While those in the gold camp would argue it has set the standard for tackling corporate crime, its detractors would point to the fact that prosecutions under the Act have been few and far between. So just how effective has it been?
There is little doubt that the Act has come to be viewed as the starting point when other countries consider creating anti-corruption legislation. This is partly because of just how far-reaching it is. From 1 July 2011, when it came into effect, the Bribery Act has covered all companies of all sizes, either based in, or with a close connection to, the UK. Any such company can be prosecuted in the UK, under the Act, for bribery that was perpetrated on its behalf anywhere in the world by its staff, an intermediary, third party or even a trading partner acting on its behalf. With maximum punishments including unlimited fines and up to ten years’ imprisonment, it is a piece of legislation that could only be dismissed as ineffective if it was not being put to work by those who have it at their disposal.
That, perhaps, is what has prompted criticism. There can be little argument that the Act has been used sparingly in the past decade, with most convictions being of individuals for offering bribes (an offence under Section 1) or the Section 2 offence of taking bribes. The Section 7 strict liability offence of failing to prevent bribery was the part of the Act that caused most concern to the business world when it was set to become law. But the fact that Section 7 prosecutions have been rare does seem to have made such concerns look alarmist, in hindsight.
But although there have not been many prosecutions under the Act, this should not be taken as a sign that it is of little value. I can put forward at least three reasons for this. The first and most obvious one is that bribery investigations can be complex and time-consuming. As a result, the courts are never going to be swamped by a huge wave of bribery prosecutions. Secondly, the lack of Bribery Act prosecutions could be viewed as a sign of its success in persuading companies to ensure their anti-bribery procedures are fit for purpose. Its international reach and the severity of the penalties that can be imposed may well have focused minds on the need for compliance.
The third reason is deferred prosecution agreements (DPAs). Nine of the 12 DPAs that the Serious Fraud Office has concluded with companies have been related to bribery. A number of the offences were committed before the Bribery Act came into effect, and so could not have been prosecuted under it. But nevertheless, DPAs have been used enthusiastically by the SFO as an alternative to Bribery Act prosecutions. But this is arguably no reason to criticise the Bribery Act. If anything, it has been almost a facilitator for the SFO: the prospect of a Bribery Act prosecution can act as the menacing elephant in the room when the SFO is conducting DPA negotiations with a company that has become entangled in bribery. It was certainly enough of a frightening prospect to prompt Airbus to pay a fine and costs amounting to €991 million under its UK DPA, which formed part of its €3.6 billion global resolution for bribery.
All three of these factors have influenced just how the Bribery Act is being used. So, it would be a mistake to argue that just because there have only been occasional prosecutions it has somehow been a failure. That is down to its use by the authorities rather than any fault with the Act itself.
Speaking virtually at the Austrian World Summit 2021, climate activist Greta Thunberg attacked global leaders, accusing them of “role-playing” and failing to take purposeful action as fossil fuel usage continues to climb. As well as the globe’s leaders, big corporations have also come under attack by Thunberg for the detrimental impact their operations have on the planet.
Businesses and political leaders are not only expedited to action by activists such as Thunberg, but also the increased deployment of climate litigation. According to a study by the London School of Economics, the number of disputes relating to the climate crisis has more than doubled over the past five years. This is what we are coming to know as the climate litigation boom. Over the coming years, the effects of the climate crisis will inevitably worsen, leading to further climate-related disputes.
Litigation against companies is already increasing in the form of private legal claims, and this is a trend that is expected to increase further in the years to come.
November 2015 saw the first case in Europe seeking to clarify the environmental responsibilities of oil and gas companies. Peruvian farmer Saúl Luciano Lliuya brought a claim against Germany’s largest electricity producer RWE over allegations that RWE excessively contributed to the climate crisis by emitting substantial amounts of greenhouse gases. The farmer claimed that this contributed to the melting of a glacial lake near the farmer’s home town of Huaraz, Peru.
Claims against energy companies by states are also becoming an increasingly frequent occurrence. In 2018, for example, Rhode Island launched a lawsuit seeking to hold 21 fossil companies to account for causing climate change impacts that adversely affected the Rhode Island state and its residents.
Another example of this comes later on in 2018 when New York City revived its claim against several fossil fuel companies. The city sought costs for the measures it established to protect its residents from the impacts of the climate crisis. New York City claimed that the defendants were responsible for 11% of carbon and methane pollution from industrial sources. In April of this year, New York City also sued oil giants Exxon, BP, and Shell, claiming that the companies had been misrepresenting themselves by selling fuels as “cleaner” and promoting themselves to be leaders in the fight against the climate crisis.
It is not only big corporations that are increasingly being held to account, but also the world’s governments. 2018 saw a landmark ruling, upheld by The Hague Court of Appeal, in which an environmental group and approximately 900 Dutch citizens succeeded in their rights-based claim against their government. It was ruled that the Dutch government must reduce CO2 emissions by at least 25% compared to 1990 levels after it was found to have both a constitutional duty and a duty to protect its citizens against the impacts of the climate crisis. The outcome of the Urgenda Foundation v the Kingdom of Netherlands was the first decision by any court in the world to order a state to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions for a reason beyond statutory mandates.
Claims related to the climate crisis are also being brought forward by activist shareholders and investors. Towards the end of 2018, environmental law organisation ClientEarth sued Polish utility company Enea SA over its approval to construct a coal-fired power plant. ClientEarth argued that the climate crisis-related financial risks of the power plant would harm the economic interests of the company. The claim explored whether or not Enea SA’s approval of the power plant breached the duty of its board members to act in the company’s best interests.
Similarly, this year shareholders rebuked Exxon Mobil for its climate change strategy. At the annual company meeting held in May, shareholders voted to replace two of their twelve board members, with nominees supported by the Engine No.1 activist hedge fund. The vote sent a clear message to company CEO Darren Woods that shareholders were not impressed with Exxon’s current efforts to reduce its environmental impact.
Although not all the aforementioned claims have seen success, it is clear that climate change litigation is a trend rapidly on the rise. In the years to come, the climate litigation boom will only expand further as the need to hold the globe’s governments and big corporations to account intensifies.
Bishop & Sewell is a 110-strong law firm with bold ambitions to be ranked in the top 100 places to work in the UK, having already earned its status as an independent top 100 law firm. The firm believes technology is central to achieving its ambition and have brought Access Legal in to help free up critical time currently dedicated to legacy systems. Bishop & Sewell is looking to achieve greater efficiencies across its business, ultimately ensuring the firm’s people are equipped to reach their full potential.
Access Legal will assist the firm in the rollout of a proven intuitive browser-based practice management system, and a new risk and compliance platform. Bishop & Sewell also purchase Access Legal’s customer relationship management system (CRM) which helps the team to better track enquiries, identify the source of new business, improve the handling experience, and more easily identify potential cross-sell opportunities.
In a comment, the firm’s Managing Partner Michael Kashis said: “We’re an ambitious law firm and wanted an equally ambitious technology partner. Access’ current and future strategy and product direction really appealed to us.”
“It’s important that we are fully accessible to clients but also it is just as critical that we help our people and our wider firm become more efficient. This meant looking beyond just an easy to use true Saas practice management system but investing in a more holistic software ecosystem that supports multiple areas of our practice – from managing our cases, our documents, our finances and communicating with clients to remaining compliant and staying ahead of regulations. This will give time back to our people, allowing them to embrace their passions within the business that aren’t just bringing in a fee, such as CSR activities, championing mental health and wellbeing or investing time into learning and upskilling. At the same time, we will be able to offer an enhanced customer experience with the arrival of our new CRM.”
Neil Messenger, Director of Client Markets at 1825, explains what being made a partner could mean for your personal finances.
By taking on this new position, there will be a whole host of changes. But on top of that, new partners mustn’t overlook the financial implications that their new role brings.
With greater responsibility comes the potential for greater financial liabilities. By stepping up to become a partner, individuals may make the shift from being a salaried employee to being self-employed and owning a stake in their business – bringing changes to how they’re paid, their pension and their tax liabilities, and making their financial and work lives more intertwined as a result.
One of the biggest financial changes for new partners is the way in which they are paid, and therefore how much tax they are liable for. These individuals will now be viewed as self-employed so taxed as a sole trader, even though their partnership will usually handle tax returns and payments. However, tax and national insurance are still a personal responsibility.
The tax liabilities owed by an individual will likely depend on the type of partner an individual is. Typically, there are three different levels: salaried partner, fixed-share equity partner and full equity partner:
Whilst full equity partners usually earn more, this doesn’t come without risk. A robust financial plan is important to build security outside of the business and mitigate those risks. Speaking to a tax planner or financial adviser will allow new partners to fully understand their tax liabilities and how best to prepare for any difficulties when their income may be unpredictable.
After an employee becomes a partner, they will no longer be eligible for their company’s pension scheme. Instead, partners must start their own private pension or, if the firm offers a partners pension, they can enter that. But the bottom line is that, by leaving the company pension scheme, a new partner gives up their employer contribution – which can be as much as 10% for older, salaried employees. With partners now responsible for making their own contributions, without the additional top-up provided by the employer, individuals can see their contributions tail off.
It will be important that partners continue to save as much as they can into their pension. However, higher earners may have their contributions limited by taper rules on tax relief, which could reduce how much they can pay into their pot to £10,000 a year – a figure that partners could hit or even exceed without noticing. Because the rules around a partner’s pension contributions apply to total income, it can be especially difficult to assess how much can be made in the way of pension savings until the end of the year. A professional adviser can help a partner understand their pension limits, and plan to ensure they’re maximising the growth and value of their retirement savings.
Many companies will aim to instil good governance for their partners’ finances by contractually requiring that partners have an updated will and estate plan in place within their first year. However, there are still risks associated with becoming a partner and protecting one’s assets.
In extreme cases, a partner’s personal assets – including their home – may be liable to practice debts, should the firm enter financial difficulties. If there are insufficient funds in the partnership to cover the liabilities, creditors can pursue the individual partners. A common way to limit the impact that a firm’s potential financial difficulties might have on a partner is to hold assets in trusts, a limited company, or in the name of another close family member. However, this can leave partners without any assets to their name, so it is important to strike a balance.
Once a partner reaches retirement, it’s common to receive a guarantee from the ongoing partnership against any future claims against the business, but this is not the case in all situations. It is therefore important that partners make sure they understand their specific contractual stipulations pre-retirement.
It’s easy to find a change in your financial situation overwhelming when becoming a partner, particularly in the first year of a partnership, but this is where financial advisers can play a key role. They can ensure that everything has been considered when it comes to your finances and will help you take the necessary steps to limit any future financial difficulty.
Three of Clarke Willmott’s regional offices have placed highly in the guide which recognises leading law firms and legal advisors for high-value legal matters. Five of the firm’s lawyers have also been named individually in the guide.
The firm’s Taunton office has retained its Band 1 ranking, while its Manchester office received a Band 2 ranking, and its Bristol office obtained a Band 3 ranking.
Clarke Willmott has also been recognised for its work in Private Wealth Disputes in the South West of the country, with a further three lawyers named as leading practitioners in the field.
Head of Clarke Willmott’s Private Client team, Antony Fairweather, commented: “We are delighted to once again have been named as one of the leading private client law firms in this year’s High Net Worth Guide. It is a testament to our hard-working and conscientious lawyers that we have retained or improved on last year’s impressive results, showcasing the strength and consistency of our practice. Our strong and growing presence in all regions of the UK highlights Clarke Willmott’s private client practice as one of the best and most diverse in the country.”
