Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
Slaughter and May associates will have the option to reduce their hours down by 20% under the new “switch on/off” scheme. The scheme will allow lawyers to take pre-agreed blocks of leave. This will allow those with children to better align their leave with school holidays, though Slaughter and May have stated that the programme is not exclusively for parents.
The second part-time scheme to be introduced by Slaughter and May will centre around project-led flexibility. Associates at the firm will be offered the opportunity to reduce their hours by a maximum of 20% and book unpaid holiday leave between large transactions. This is on top of their regular annual leave allowance, enabling associates to commit to working end-to-end throughout a transaction.
The third programme to be offered by the firm will allow associates to split their hours by arranging for two associates to work together to cover one role. This job share option will not require two associates of the same level to pair up. As such, the scheme could see a junior associate pairing up with a senior associate to cover a role. Each associate would be expected to work just three days a week, with a one day overlap where they are both at work.
Slaughter and May’s three part-time working programmes follow its announcement of its wider back-to-the-office plan. According to Legal Cheek, the firm stated that most of its London-based staff would be allowed to work remotely 40% of the time, with the remaining 60% of work hours to be conducted from the office.
The CPSC is seeking an order determining that Amazon is legally responsible for defective and unsafe products sold across its third-party platform. The complaint filed by the CPSC accuses Amazon of selling faulty carbon monoxide detectors, children’s sleepwear that did not meet federal standards for flammability, and hair dryers that put users at risk of shock and electrocution. These products were not sold by Amazon directly but were sold across Amazon’s marketplace by one of its millions of third-party sellers. Each of the sellers used a service called Fulfillment By Amazon, under which Amazon stores and dispatches the products on behalf of the retailers.
Upon being notified of the defects, Amazon removed some of the product listings and informed customers that these products were faulty and unsafe to use. Amazon also offered refunds to the customers. However, the CPSC claims that the actions taken by Amazon were insufficient, arguing that Amazon did not want to be legally responsible for the products and was reluctant to label the incident “a recall”.
Amazon has already faced numerous product liability lawsuits across the United States that seek to hold the retail giant accountable for harm caused by items bought across its platform. However, Amazon has said it is not liable for the products sold by third-party vendors and states that it only provides a service for connecting buyers and sellers.
Eleanor Weaver, CEO of Luminance, explains how technology is enabling lawyers to prepare for the increased number of disputes resulting from the pandemic.
Technology, and AI in particular, is playing a critical role in helping businesses to weather the storm posed by an increase in disputes. 2020 was a disruptive year across the board: the pandemic has wreaked untold economic and social havoc, and businesses have also had to contend with issues arising from Brexit, as well as trying to comply with increased regulation across a wide variety of areas. As businesses navigate this challenging climate, restructuring and redundancies have been inevitable, and thus employment-related litigation skyrocketed as employees contested unfair dismissal and unsafe working conditions. And the disputes aren’t just arising from employees: Gallagher’s Business Litigation Index found that almost 60% of UK-based businesses took legal action or threatened to do so against another business last year, either because money was owed, there was an alleged contractual breach or due to infringement on intellectual property.
Legal action looks set to reach record levels across the board, as businesses seek to recoup damages from the pandemic. Just look at the US-based gym chain, LA Fitness, which is suing 11 different insurers for a whopping $500 million on Covid-related losses.
As the volume of disputes intensifies, so does the lawyers’ workload. And the explosion of data in recent years means that investigations can relate to thousands - sometimes hundreds of thousands - of documents. Consequently, preparing for a claim can be incredibly resource and time-intensive for companies, not to mention expensive. When the tobacco manufacturer, Philip Morris, lost its case against Australia’s plain packaging laws in 2017, it was forced to cover the Australian government’s legal fees which totalled $39 million.
Of course, lawyers can’t look through this volume of information manually, and eDiscovery technologies are routinely used throughout investigations. However, with outdated technology, lawyers still run the risk of missing key information needed to help with the case. Although many eDiscovery tools currently on the market save time and resources, the vast majority rely on outdated approaches using pre-programmed rules and keyword searches, many of which are a little more sophisticated than pressing Control-F on your laptop. With simplistic search tools, lawyers could easily miss the smoking gun, with relevant emails or communications often hidden behind colloquial slang or obscurities. And that is before intentional obfuscation of meaning.
AI-powered eDiscovery is transforming this process. In contrast to legacy technologies which are only able to surface results based on specific search terms, AI actually understands essence and context. This means that, should I be looking for an email that relates to Covid-19, the AI could also surface results based on variations of this word like pandemic, virus or Coronavirus, ensuring that nothing is missed. Likewise, once I had found an email that I knew to be critical to the case, AI could instantly show me similar emails related by concept and context, rather than just keywords.
The result is huge time and cost savings, as well as increased efficiency and thoroughness. These outcomes have never been more important for litigators and in-house teams alike. Indeed, a recent study found that the litigation boom is putting a particular strain on in-house counsel who are under pressure to reduce legal spending due to economic uncertainty but are also facing a huge surge in dispute claims. I was recently talking to an in-house lawyer at a well-known DIY superstore. Over the pandemic, consumer action against the company had gone through the roof, just as their in-house legal team had been cut in half. By producing time savings of up to 90%, AI can help in-house teams break the back of their caseloads whilst also keeping costs low.
Crucially, AI can be used for a wide variety of disputes, helping businesses big and small. For instance, AI could be used to analyse hundreds of thousands of documents for a case relating to unsafe working conditions. Take the example of Amazon, which was recently fined $41,000 for failing to record 217 Covid-19 infections among employees at a Rialto facility, and for which the company may well face further claims. At the other end of the spectrum, AI could be used to help a very small business navigate a contractual breach from a supplier.
And, with a recent Norton Rose Fulbright survey finding that nearly 50% of respondents were anticipating a significant rise in pandemic-related disputes in the next two to three years, it has never been more critical for legal teams to adopt the most innovative tech tools out there to support their workflow in light of these predictions.
Covid-related economic uncertainty, and the increase in litigation that comes hand-in-hand with it, will feature heavily for the foreseeable future. The adoption of AI in the legal sphere is critical to enable businesses of all sizes to weather this storm by providing an efficient way to sort through copious amounts of data. This allows businesses to find that needle in a haystack, reach conclusions faster and generate time and resource savings.
The Major Trauma Group was founded in Spring 2020, as a non-profit Community Interest Company. The Group was established by four of the UK’s leading law firms and the Brain Injury Group in collaboration with medical clinicians. Since, the Group has grown to encompass specialist Independent Financial Advisory services.
The serious injury team at Burnetts Solicitors bring a wide range of expertise to the Group and have been supporting clients across the North East of England and Cumbria over the past months. The team also provides access to wider personal, business and public sector legal knowledge and services. Lime Solicitors offers specialist legal services that support people across the Midlands and the South East of England who have suffered a personal injury. Based in London, Manchester, and Birmingham, Horwich Cohen Coghlan is a serious injury law firm specialising in representing people who have suffered major trauma injuries.
In the United Kingdom, major trauma injuries are currently the main cause of death for people under the age of 45. Patients who survive typically require ongoing specialist rehabilitation services and financial support after being discharged. However, patients are often unsure of how to access the support they require. The Major Trauma Group seeks to provide information and support for individuals, directing them to the appropriate financial, legal, and mental health services as necessary. Throughout the pandemic, there has been an increased strain on NHS resources. The Major Trauma Group is calling on other community groups, charities, and insurers to come together to provide the support and guidance that major trauma victims critically need.
Chair of the Major Trauma Group, Trevor Sterling, has said: “This is an exceptionally exciting time for the Group, and we are delighted to work in collaboration with experts that share in our vision of working towards greater provision of holistic rehabilitation for major trauma survivors.
“These three firms, alongside our existing specialist Members, can help make real changes to the lives of major trauma survivors and their families. We look forward to making progress together.”
Riccardo Bruno, Associate at Arc Pensions Law, examines the recent judgement in the Axminster case and what this means for trustees.
The recent High Court ruling in Punter Southall Governance Services Ltd v Hazlett In Re The Axminster Carpets Group Retirement Benefits Plan [2021] EWHC 1652 (Ch)) (“Axminster”) gives guidance on how limitation defences and forfeiture rights affect the liabilities of defined benefit pension schemes for legacy underpayment issues. Employers’ costs could reduce where ‘class action’ type benefit problems have emerged. This may have a bearing on accounting, actuarial valuations and buyout readiness. Whilst providing some welcome clarity, the ruling also raises important new issues, particularly about continuity on change of trustees. The so-called ‘drafting lottery’ means scheme rules differ widely, and legal advice will be needed on a scheme-specific basis.
Axminster was a case about pension increases and the equalisation of benefits. Most of the substantive issues had been compromised before the hearing. The rulings on the remaining issues will apply to arrears for all kinds of historic benefit underpayments. It’s not often a Judge gets a second chance. The case was allocated to Mr Justice Peter Morgan, giving him a chance to reconsider some of his own rulings in another landmark case - Lloyds Banking Group Pensions Trustees Limited v Lloyds Bank Plc and others [2018] EWHC 2839 (Ch) (“Lloyds”).
After reviewing case law since 1806 and all the subsequent statutory developments, he stood by his ruling in Lloyds. The claim of an underpaid member against trustees in possession is a claim for recovery of trust property and is therefore within the exclusion in section 21(1) of the Limitation Act 1980, so there is no limitation period.
However, there are different ways of framing such a claim, and they can make a difference:
In Axminster, a compensation claim against the sole corporate trustee could only be for its actions since appointment in 2013, less than 6 years before the Court process started. There is no right to compensation against the current trustee for underpayments by the previous trustee.
As the previous trustee was no longer in possession of trust property, it would benefit from a 6-year limitation period. Further, as the earliest a claim could be started was now (in 2021), the previous trustee could have no liability unless there has been ‘concealment’ to delay the start of time running under s32 Limitation Act 1980. This is no doubt a point that would have gone unnoticed at the time the trustee was changed. Logically it may be right, but it is far from clear how it would apply to changes in a board of individual trustees. There may be scope for abuse here, or trustee protection, depending which way you look at it.
Perhaps members could establish continuity by arguing that it is a breach of trust for an incoming trustee to fail to ascertain the correct benefits to be paid. Where trustees have changed, members may want to frame the claim as a claim for an account (it seems, though the judgement is not crystal clear on this). There could be a downside though when it comes to interest. Once winding up has been completed and the trustees have no trust property, it does now appear that 6-year limitation applies as a long stop. This should help to cap the long tail exposure of solvent sponsors and trustees when a DB scheme is bought out.
Mr Justice Morgan also stood by his ruling that forfeiture provisions within the pension scheme rules work, as long as they are worded correctly. They can only apply to instalments, not the entire right to the pension. There will be issues of interpretation in particular scheme rules. Much was made of the authorities that say pension scheme documents are drafted by skilled and specialist legal draftsmen, without time pressure. In practice the parties pay little attention to boilerplate clauses like these.
Trustees who want to exercise their discretion not to forfeit, or to reinstate benefits after mandatory forfeiture, will find support in Axminster. The Judge gave a strong steer in that direction where members were not at fault, and the trustees were. There is a shot across the bows of trustees who knew they were, or may be, underpaying – if they are members, should they also be relieved from forfeiture on the same grounds? It seemed that the Judge did not think so. The classic formulation of a pension scheme trustee’s duty is to pay “the right amount to the right person at the right time”. Trustees have tended to assume that underpayment and non-payment simply has to be put right, if possible. Forfeiture rules have rarely been applied in DB schemes. But they may be mandatory; and if the scheme is underfunded, and maybe the sponsor is under pressure, there may be less justification for choosing not to apply it.
Simple interest at 1% above base applies to equitable compensation (but where the trustee has changed, it may not cover the full arrears). The Senior Courts Act 1981 allows interest to be awarded on a claim for debt or damages.
The position is now clear on past underpayments of pension scheme benefits - there is no applicable limitation period in a claim by a beneficiary against trustees for arrears where the trustee is still in possession of trust property. Forfeiture may apply in theory but in practice it is likely to have a limited effect. However, new questions now arise about the effect of changes in trustees on the quantum of member recoveries.
Aman Johal, Lawyer and Director of Your Lawyers, shares the lessons that UK businesses can learn from Chinese ride-hailing company Didi's recent cybersecurity review.
In the latest escalation of Chinese authorities cracking down on its tech sector, one of the biggest ride-hailing services, Didi Chuxing, is now under investigation by the country’s internet regulator. It follows other recent actions from the government aimed at online marketplace Alibaba, and social networks Tencent and Bytedance.
The announcement of a so-called “cybersecurity review” by China’s Cyberspace Administration saw Didi’s shares plummet in the US, two days after its IPO. The review is intended to “safeguard national data security, maintain national security and protect public interest”, and the regulator also rescinded Didi’s ability to accept new registrations. The regulator’s ruling shows the impact perceived cybersecurity risks can have on a business, let alone its consumers. But what are the lessons for British businesses?
The impact of the regulator’s announcement was devastating for Didi and could not have come at a worse time. Just two days earlier, Didi had completed its IPO in New York with a $68bn (£49bn) listing, raising nearly $4.4bn in the process and making it the largest IPO for a Chinese company in the first half of this year. By the time that news of the cybersecurity review had landed, Didi Global’s stock price fell more than 7% in morning trading.
There are parallels for British businesses and harsh lessons to be learned too. In 2018, British Airways suffered a historic data breach, with some 420,000 customers affected, an action for which our firm, Your Lawyers, represents thousands of clients. Initially, the ICO issued a record intention to fine the sum of £183m and, although this was later revised down to just £20m, the airline is due to pay far more substantial costs in compensation claims. Just this week, one settlement was reached for an estimated 40,000 claimants who may be recovering thousands of pounds in compensation each. With plenty of time for more claimants to join the group action, the final cost of the data breach could be astronomical. It’s not just the short-term financial costs of a cybersecurity risk that businesses should be concerned about, but also the long-term reputational damage that can be caused.
Not only have investors got cold feet about Didi, consumers too could turn their backs on businesses who fall short of their responsibilities to protect and use information responsibly. Consumers are increasingly savvy to cybersecurity issues and this could have a huge impact on the ride-hailing service’s success as it plans to launch in Britain within weeks. The reputational issues may damage public perceptions of the brand, causing consumers to avoid Didi and continue to use existing competitors. The long-term financial impact could be far greater than the short-term cost of Didi’s stock price hit, as there can be direct relationships between cybersecurity and competitive advantage.
If found guilty of a data breach or leak, the legal implications for businesses can be significant. A simple breach or leak could expose the data of tens of thousands of people and, if each victim brings forward a claim worth thousands of pounds, the total cost could be astronomical. In the example of the British Airways case, Your Lawyers previously estimated that compensation awards could be in the region of £6,000 for each claimant in some cases, based on current case law. This means the airline could face a potential compensation bill of up to £2.4bn in a worst-case scenario estimation.
The damages per claimant can vary depending on the type of information exposed, the amount of data involved, and the impact it has had on the victim. In a recent review of the overall damages for cases that Your Lawyers has recovered to date, which come to a total of £1m so far, we found that the typical average range can be anywhere from £500 to £15,000. The mean average here was just over £6,000, with cases where psychological trauma has been sustained capable of exceeding £15,000.
Confidential personal data – such as names, billing addresses, email addresses, card payment information, medical details, etc. – can be extremely valuable to criminals. It can be used to defraud victims, and steal identities and money. We have received frequent reports from claimants in the BA case of fraudulent transactions on their accounts, which were exposed to criminal access following the breach, which can be really traumatic for victims to experience.
Organisations that store and process private medical data can be particularly susceptible to paying high compensation fees, because health data is among the most valuable data a cybercriminal can steal. A single health record reportedly costs $250 on the black market, compared to a reported $5.40 for payment card details. Compared to the average claim in the BA data breach case, the most seriously affected claimants in the 56 Dean Street data breach in 2015 could receive damages of up to £30,000, after a leak exposed the contact details of 800 patients using the clinic for HIV services.
The examples of Didi and BA demonstrate the importance for businesses of establishing robust cybersecurity measures and protocols to safeguard the information they hold. First and foremost, organisations must invest in industry-leading cybersecurity software and make use of expert consultation - both internally and externally - for advice and support. Simple cybersecurity procedures such as multi-factor authentication and the use of strong and unique passwords can easily be deployed as crucial methods for preventing attacks. Organisations must also deploy robust backup strategies, as regularly backing up data and storing it in a separate or offline system can help to minimise the impact of a hack.
Crucially, businesses must educate their employees to prevent hackers from gaining access to a system via rudimentary methods using social engineering techniques, phishing attacks, and telephone scams. The initial expense of cybersecurity training could easily negate the significant costs of the financial repercussions and avoid any legal action that may follow a breach.
As Didi has shown, cybersecurity risks can be highly damaging for businesses and their consumers on multiple levels. Preparing a preventative strategy and data management procedures for consumer information can help to avoid a challenging and incredibly costly legal fallout.
During trans-vaginal mesh surgery, a plastic mesh is inserted into the opening of the vagina. This mesh is left in the vagina to support the womb. The trans-vaginal mesh implant is a widely prescribed treatment for common complications following childbirth, such as pelvic organ prolapse where the internal organs bulge into the vagina, or urinary incontinence, where women leak urine when doing certain tasks, particularly when running or coughing.
However, despite thousands of women having this type of surgery every year, it is not always safe or successful. Not only that, but many doctors fail to inform their patients of the risks associated with this operation before the procedure. In fact, evidence suggests that over 19% of women are not informed of the risks involved with this procedure. If you are a victim of trans-vaginal mesh surgery, then here is what you need to do next:
The first thing you need to do if you have been affected by the trans-vaginal mesh scandal is to contact a legal expert. They will be able to tell you whether you can claim compensation or not. Almost everyone who has been a victim of the trans-vaginal mesh scandal is entitled to claim compensation. After all, there is no excuse for doctors suggesting a treatment to patients without disclosing the possible risks or negative side effects.
All patients are entitled to receive comprehensive information prior to any surgical procedures or treatment. As such, if a healthcare professional or a doctor fails to disclose all the potential complications and risks involved in the course of treatment, this can signify a serious misstep and can be a breach of their duty of care to a patient.
In the case of trans-vaginal mesh implants, thousands of patients were not given adequate advice about the risks involved with the surgery. Unfortunately, trans-vaginal mesh surgery can leave women with several life-changing conditions such as chronic pain, nerve damage, reduced mobility, and bleeding.
If you have been affected by the trans-vaginal mesh scandal, contact a qualified and trustworthy clinician to see if they can help you. While they may not be able to reverse the effects of the surgery, they may be able to help you deal with any problems you are experiencing.
Looking after your mental health is extremely important. Many victims have struggled to come to terms with what they have been through, and what the surgery has done to their lives. If this sounds like you, it might be a great idea to contact a mental health professional who you can talk to about how you are feeling. They may be able to teach you some coping mechanisms that help you to come to terms with everything that has happened to you.
When it comes to trans-vaginal mesh surgery, there are many risks that patients need to be aware of including loss of sexual function, chronic pain, and major complications like the mesh protruding through the bowel or bladder. If you are a victim of trans-vaginal mesh surgery, and you were not told about the risks before your surgery was performed, then make sure you follow our advice above.
Musk has denied allegations that Tesla’s acquisition of SolarCity was a bailout. He claims that as it was a stock-for-stock transaction, he owned nearly exactly equal percentages of each company and, consequently, there was no financial gain. However, if the shareholders win their case, then Musk may have to pay upwards of $2 billion from his personal wealth.
The Tesla founder’s testimony began a two-week trial in Wilmington, Delaware, before Vice-Chancellor Joseph Slights. The Vice-Chancellor will decide whether the deal was fair to Tesla’s shareholders. The lawsuit, launched by union pension funds and asset managers, claims that Musk intimidated Tesla’s board to acquire SolarCity just as the company was due to run out of cash. Musk had a 22% stake in SolarCity, which was founded by his relatives. At the time of the purchase, Musk also had a 22% stake in Tesla.
Tesla shareholders have asked the court to order Musk to repay the company what was spent on the deal. If the shareholders win their case, it could be one of the largest ever judgements against an individual.
Stearns Law unpack the advantages and disadvantages of filing for a divorce first.
Filing for divorce can be a difficult decision. Sometimes, that decision is taken out of your hands when your spouse files. But does it matter who files for divorce first? Well, it might. In most cases, it can be advantageous to file for divorce first, but that is not a blanket statement that applies to 100% of divorces.
It is very important to understand how filing for divorce may impact your specific situation. That can lead you to make the right decision, which could be to wait and let your spouse file instead. So, how can you decide whether to file for divorce first? Here is what to consider.
When you file for divorce, it may put you at an advantage over your spouse. You will have the "upper hand," especially if they were not expecting a divorce while you have had time to prepare. There are other strategic options that may benefit you.
The person who files for divorce first may also have some choices as to which county and state they file in. It is not possible to just pick any random location and file there, but it is possible to have some options when there are ties to more than one location. The opportunity to file in a particular county, for example, may be beneficial depending on the judges in that county. The same may be true of a different state, where divorce laws may be more, or less, lenient.
One of the biggest potential advantages to filing first, however, is the opportunity to have some control over the time at which the proceedings start. By performing due diligence and preparing in advance, you can “start the clock” at a time you choose by being the one to file for divorce. You will then have a better idea of a timeline as to when hearings and discovery requirements will need to be addressed. That control over when the divorce is initiated can be very important.
Filing first also gives your attorney the right to certain trial advantages. The person filing first will have the right to speak to the court first, as well as speak last. If litigation is expected, your attorney will want to file first in most cases for this reason. Although family court is generally liberal with these types of rules they do provide the parameters for the courtroom decorum.
There are very few disadvantages to being the first one to file for divorce. From an emotional and mental standpoint, though, you may feel like the "bad guy." Still, divorce is a legal process that will have to be handled at some point if you want to end your marriage. Waiting on a reluctant spouse to file may become stressful for you and contribute to mental and physical health issues.
When you file first, the only real disadvantage will likely be the way you are perceived by some, who may be shocked or surprised that you are divorcing. Your rights and responsibilities will not change, and you will not gain any advantage by waiting for your spouse to file. In most cases, a spouse who wants out of a marriage is better off to prepare themselves and then file.
Another aspect to consider is reconciliation. Even if you know your spouse is considering filing for divorce, you may still want to work on the marriage. If that is true, then you would not want to let filing for divorce first get in the way of a possible reconciliation. Once a lawsuit is filed that brings in attorneys and others who influence the decision making. A divorce attorney is going to get you divorced. If you do not want to get divorced, then you would want to seek individual or marital counselling and work on the marriage.
To begin the process of filing for divorce, your best option is to work with an attorney who can help. By talking to a legal professional, you can explore your options and understand the types of decisions you will need to make. You can also find out about any special circumstances that may surround your case, and ask questions regarding issues such as alimony and child custody. Reaching out to a divorce attorney is the right first step.
The market size for online legal services was valued at 8.5 billion U.S. dollars in 2020. Research by the Statista Research Department suggests that this figure will only continue to grow in the years ahead. Each one of us, at some point, will have made a Google search for a solution to a legal issue. This could be as simple as how do I pay my parking tickets, is it legal to record a conversation, is it illegal to smoke in the car? But most of us have resorted to using the internet to clarify our legal qualms at some point or another.
To have a professional answer these questions, you would need to spend time finding that professional and would likely need to pay them a sizeable fee. But, when you have a working internet connection and a keyboard, these answers are available at your fingertips. It is understandable that more and more people are moving online to have their legal issues resolved and their questions answered, and the use of online services has only increased since the pandemic as people were forced to stay inside. But does this mean that it is the end of the traditional legal services? How do lawyers manage the growing popularity of online legal services? Why else are online legal services gaining popularity?
Cost-Effective
The fear of leaving behind your loved ones without direction is something that haunts everyone. This makes writing wills a most sought-after and expensive service of lawyers. The advent of technology, however, makes it possible to create a will online. All you need to do for creating a will without a lawyer is find a legal services website where you can easily make a DIY will that is just as valid as the wills drafted by a lawyer. The costs involved are relatively low, and you have the freedom to write your own will.
A traditional legal firm has numerous overhead costs necessary for its functioning. All this is transferred to the clients in terms of the high costs for their services. As online law firms do not have to bear these expenses, the benefits are passed on to the client.
Image by Pexels
Communicating with a lawyer in a traditional setup happens through phone and email. You will have to request an appointment with the lawyer beforehand and wait for your turn to interact with them. The sessions are expensive and could take a few days for you to find a time to discuss the issue over a call or get a response to your email.
Online legal services, on the other hand, have their experts available round the clock. The virtual law firms can connect with you at your convenience over a video call and provide you with guidance. As legal help is seamlessly available, more and more people are switching to online lawyers over traditional law firms.
Traditional law firms have an office, fixed timings, and require appointments for you to interact with them. Online legal services are accessible and available 24*7 and can be accessed from your laptop, mobile, or tablet on the go. Clients can save time on travel and in-person meetings. Besides, online legal services are accessible to people worldwide, thus breaking the geographical boundaries of the legal profession too.
A delay in accessing your legal team could prove to be an expensive affair. Online legal services eliminate this risk by instantly connecting you with reputable attorneys, legal experts, and automated systems which guide you on the preliminary steps to take. This will save you ample precious time and save you on legal costs.
Legal services involve a lot of paperwork, which could be intimidating. A layperson cannot fathom the words and jargon in it and going through the documents, creating copies, and ensuring everything in place could be cumbersome. Imagine a scenario where you miss out on important documents or file them in the wrong order and risk getting your case or dispute resolution delayed. When things move online, it is possible to control the order of filing documents. Automation will help you be sure you have filled in all the details and have a copy for every document filed. This will make the paperwork process seamless and avoid confusion.
The lawyer or the law firm you know might not cover the services that you are looking for. Whereas online legal services are built focusing on specialised niche services. This means you can get customised solutions to your legal issues from the subject matter experts instead of running from pillar to post trying to find an expert.
As online platforms have fixed templates that you can use based on your concern, the paperwork is simplified and instant too. However, it is important to make sure you consult a legal professional and take their assistance if you wish to file a lawsuit or contest a lawsuit against you. You could use the online portals to help you with the templates and documentation part while finding a real-life attorney.
While many pros make online legal services a favourable option, it has a few cons too. For instance, these websites cannot act as your attorney or represent you in court. Instead, they act as guidance and help to provide a portal for basic documentation, business advice, and legal service forms. While it is acceptable to use online legal services for a few individuals and small business needs, these websites cannot replace the role of a physical attorney or a law firm. One could compare this to the way WebMd has not made the services of doctors and a professional diagnosis irrelevant.
Consider using online legal services for legal advice and personal law assistance alone. Based on the guidance available online, you will have to hire an attorney for more customised service and a formal lawsuit.
