Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
Meng Wanzhou is facing extradition from Canada to the United States on charges of bank fraud, having allegedly misled UK bank HSBC regarding Huawei’s business dealings in Iran, which potentially caused HSBC to breach US sanctions. Wanzhou has been under house arrest in Vancouver since December 2018.
Her legal team have argued that the 300 pages of internal HSBC documents that were received through a Hong Kong court should be introduced to Wanzhou’s extradition case as evidence. Her legal team are confident the documents would disprove the basis for her US extradition claim as they demonstrate that at least two senior leaders at HSBC knew about the relationship between Skycom and Huawei. Wanzhou’s lawyers argue that the HSBC documents would contradict claims that only junior HSBC employees knew about Huawei and Skycom’s relations.
However, the internal HSBC documents have been barred from being introduced to the case. Huawei Canada has said it is respectful of the decision but regrets the outcome. Wanzhou will appear in court in early August, with her extradition hearings set to finish by the end of the same month.
Newly qualified solicitors at Herbert Smith Freehills’ London office will now earn £107,000, consisting of an undisclosed base salary and a bonus. In their first year at the firm, trainees will take home £47,000, with this figure increasing to £52,000 in their second year at the company.
Other UK law firms have also recently increased their compensation packages for newly qualified solicitors. Amongst these firms are Eversheds Sutherland, CMS, and DLA Piper.
Herbert Smith Freehills has also announced a strong autumn retention score of 97%. The firm held on to 28 out of 29 qualifying trainees. All 29 trainees had made applications for permanent positions, however, 28 offers were made with all offers being accepted.
Legal Recruitment Consultants at Interlink Recruitment share their opinions on how hiring has changed in the legal sector since the pandemic.
The legal sector, like many other industries, has been faced with unique challenges during the pandemic, particularly when it comes to recruitment. Despite the uncertainty brought to light, the legal industry has continued to recruit for a number of roles and has seen success and growth in multiple areas.
In terms of recruitment in the legal sector, one of the main challenges has been a massive shift in people’s work-life balance. The legal market is constantly changing and adapting to ensure they keep up to date with societal standards. As the majority of people were forced to work from home and a more hybrid approach to working has been introduced over the past year and a half, this has resulted in candidates wanting more flexibility from potential roles.
Although this has been challenging when recruiting as roles need to be much more tailored to meet these needs, it has also had a positive impact on legal firms bringing them flexibility with their hiring. Madeline Amer, Legal Recruitment Consultant at Interlink Recruitment said:
“This has led to success for the legal sector as law firms are offering positions to Solicitors from all over the UK, not restricted to specific locations. Consequently, this provides new recruitment opportunities, widening the pool of candidates for all UK law firms. With law firms seeking the best candidates, standards are higher for the requirement process. Overall, the most important factor for Solicitors is to take on new opportunities, widen your network and be consistently motivated.”
Traditionally, recruitment processes take time and money - for good reason. It’s important that during this process, candidates are carefully selected and considered to ensure the most qualified and suitable individuals are selected for the role.
However, new advances in automation technology have meant that certain recruitment processes can be sped up - for example, sifting through CVs, application forms and the scheduling of interviews. Although this can be seen as a positive to some extent, some concerns come with relying entirely on technology to do the job of a human.
Thomas Crea, Legal Recruitment Consultant at Interlink Recruitment says:
“There will be additional costs for the software, training and maintenance of the system that must be weighed against the money saved in admin staff fees. Therefore, it isn’t always a financially beneficial option. Another challenge faced with AI and automation is inaccuracies. No technology is perfect and AI would likely make errors, potentially resulting in the loss of great candidates. The main disadvantage that we firmly believe in is the absence of relationship-building in AI. Recruitment is about people and how are you supposed to give a ‘human touch’ with a robot? Long-term client relationships require the personal touch to provide a feeling of trust, comfort and security. Recruitment software doesn’t take the client out for lunch, a recruiter does.”
Another evident change is an increasing interest in Legal Cashier roles, so much so that the demand currently outweighs supply. This has meant that recruiting has been difficult as although the demand is high, it is also a niche role with a limited pool of candidates. Emily Holman-Gavin, Legal Recruitment Consultant at Interlink Recruitment shares her experience with this challenge below:
“A few of our clients are beginning to ask about these Legal Cashier opportunities and this is becoming increasingly regular. We also see a consistent number of Legal Assistant roles and administration roles that remain sought after all year round. Recruiting for these types of roles where there is high demand but limited candidates is very difficult. From my experience, there are very limited Legal Cashiers nationwide and most candidates aren’t interested in moving either. When a Legal Cashier is settled in a firm they appear to desire staying in this role unless a change is necessary.”
This alongside the general growth and success of the legal industry during the pandemic has meant that there is also much more competition for legal roles. Not only is there a great deal of Newly Qualified legal professionals that will be looking for jobs, but people’s working attitudes and requirements have also changed causing many people to consider new opportunities.
All in all, hiring has brought challenges but recruiting for legal positions continues to be a success despite the new considerations. The important thing is that legal firms continue to adapt and cater to people’s needs when recruiting, as it is unlikely that we will return to traditional ways of working, so to attract the best talent firms must be willing to offer flexibility and keep up with the ever-evolving industry.
Interlink Recruitment is one of the fastest-growing independent legal recruitment consultancies in the UK, acting for a wide range of law firms both nationally and internationally.
Various accidents and situations can lead to a personal injury case. Some cases involve exceptional circumstances, while others are commonplace but most of them generally fall into the general categories of personal injury that these lawyers handle. As a regular citizen, it is essential to have a firm understanding of the common types of personal injury cases and how you can receive compensation should you become injured due to someone else’s wrongful conduct. Some of the common types of personal injury cases are discussed here to help improve your legal knowledge.
Car accidents are one of the most common situations that result in injury where the legal assistance of lawyers is needed. Lawyers who are personal injury experts are very familiar with injury cases resulting from vehicular accidents. Carelessness, lack of prudence and vigilance, and failure to follow the rules of the road are common causes of car accidents. The driver at fault can be held financially responsible for the injuries sustained by the plaintiff from the car accident. The plaintiff must have sufficient medical documentation about the injury and amount spent for treatment and rehabilitation, insurance information, and police report or private investigator finding that provides critical details of the accident. Supporting documentation about the personal injury is crucial in strengthening the plaintiff’s claims.
Personal injury lawyers also commonly handle slip and fall claims for their clients. When a person slips and falls on public or private property, he or she may seek compensation for the injuries sustained from the accident. Property owners have a legal responsibility to keep their premises safe and free from obstructions and hazards that can injure other people. The assistance of lawyers is often needed in this type of injury, as not all injuries that happen on the property will lead to liability. They can determine the property owner’s legal duty based on the situation and according to the applicable state laws. Nevertheless, the case can be strengthened if the property is ill-maintained or altered in a way that it becomes unreasonably or unexpectedly dangerous to others.
Workplace injury cases have a broader scope than just the compensation an employer gives to injured employees at work. While there are laws in place to safeguard the rights of employees in the event of workplace accidents and injuries, worker’s compensation law can vary from state to state. It can make processing claims and benefits difficult without the assistance of an attorney with experience in worker’s compensation and personal injury. Emotional and mental distress from external factors such as hacking and cybersecurity breaches can fall within the scope of workplace injuries, depending on laws in place in different states. Nevertheless, the hacker or cybercriminal will be held liable for the damages and injuries resulting from the breach.
Injuries stemming from the use of a defective product can entitle a person to seek compensation for the sustained damage. It is not just the actual product defects that can lead to injuries. Improper labels, operation manuals, or warnings related to the product can also cause injuries to the person using the product. Food, drugs, cosmetics, children’s products, consumer products, mechanical devices, electronic devices, and other consumer products can cause injuries to the consumers or users if they are defective. A seasoned lawyer can help you file claims against individuals, businesses, government entities, or other responsible parties involved in the manufacture, marketing, design, or sale of a defective product. They will also evaluate the defective product and the extent of the injuries sustained by their clients to ensure that they get the maximum compensation.
Medical malpractice is a complex, sensitive and controversial topic that needs the professional services of an experienced medical malpractice lawyer. If a doctor, nurse, or other medical professional administers drugs or provides a treatment that does not meet the appropriate medical standards of care and the patient gets injured as a result, a medical malpractice claim can be filed by the patient or by the patient’s loved ones in case of a severe injury. Medical malpractice covers a broad range of situations, including surgical errors, improper treatment, misdiagnosis, medication, pharmacy errors, and birth injuries resulting from errors committed during the delivery of a child. What complicates a medical malpractice case is the possibility of unfavourable medical outcomes during treatment. It means that an adverse treatment result does not mean that medical malpractice occurred. However, an experienced medical malpractice lawyer can help establish proof of negligence or inappropriate actions during treatment and aggressively pursue legal action to have the rightful compensation given for the injury or damage sustained by their client.
No matter how carefully we go about our daily lives, accidents and injuries can still happen. These are often caused by factors beyond our control, especially when caused by the negligence or wrongful conduct of other individuals or entities. Still, it helps to know the common types of personal injuries and the possible legal actions you can pursue about them. Having this knowledge can help you to effectively seek legal assistance and coordinate better with your lawyer in filing a personal injury claim.
The sentence was delivered by US district judge Paul Gardephe in New York after Avenatti was found guilty of attempted extortion and honest services fraud close to a year ago. Avenatti was convicted last February after he threatened to falsely accuse Nike of paying amateur basketball players unless the sportswear giant handed him up to $25 million. Avenatti told Nike’s lawyers that his accusations could knock $10 billion off Nike’s clients’ stock market capitalization.
Judge Gardephe said Avenatti’s behaviour was outrageous and criticised the power of his platform. He also sentenced Avenatti to three years of supervised release. Avenatti allegedly wept in court and told his children to be ashamed of him.
The sentence falls short of federal sentencing recommendations that range from 9 to just over 11 years for the offences committed by Avenatti. However, Judge Gardepe said that both Avenatti’s apparent penitence and the harsh conditions of the Manhattan federal prison, in which he stayed following his 2019 arrest, led to Avenatti receiving a lighter sentence.
The celebrity lawyer still has three more criminal trials to face. Next week, he will attend a trial in California where prosecutors are accusing him of defrauding clients. Avenatti will face a further criminal trial in California later this year.
DLA Piper’s newly qualified London-based solicitors will be £12k better off in September, with base pay increasing to £88,000 from $76,000. From September, trainees in London will see a £1k pay increase, taking their first year earnings up to £46,000 and their second year earnings up to £51,000.
The considerable pay increase for London newly qualified solicitors means DLA Piper has overtaken a number of major outfits, including Eversheds Sutherland and CMS. Both firms recently increased their pay for new associates to £82,000.
Those in DLA Piper’s regional offices will also see their pay cheques increase. Newly qualified solicitors in the regional offices will receive an extra £4,000 per year as their yearly salary increases to £48,000. Trainees in regional offices will receive an extra £2,000, bringing their salaries up to £31,000 in their first year and £33,000 in their second.
When you face a problem that needs special attention, it is only natural that you will want to hire the best professional to help you deal with it. That is the same case when you are looking for a lawyer. However, with so many licensed lawyers, when you face a legal problem, it would be exhausting to select the right one. It can be a time-consuming process but surely an important one. First, you can get a list of potential lawyers by talking to your friends or people from your industry and even looking up online for the same. Once you have this list ready, you can contact them and interview each of them to find one that you can trust. Below are steps that you need to take to ensure that you are hiring the right lawyer.
To be able to hire a professional, you will first need to understand the problem that you are facing. Every lawyer has different specialisations. Before you select one to represent you, you need to understand what kind of lawyer is suited for the problem at hand. Once you understand that, then you can seek a Legal Expert to help you solve the issue. Lawyers who specialise in solving the type of problem you are facing will know the latest law developments in that field along with the legal nuances that need to be taken into consideration. They will give you that extra attention that your case needed, which could make a marginal difference to your case.
The level of experience that a lawyer has is another critical criterion you need to take into consideration. A lawyer who has a good record of success with similar cases like yours can be helpful. This record of success will increase the chances of the lawyer being able to win your case. The lawyer’s experience here is dependent on various factors like the length of their service, the number of cases that they have dealt with that is similar to yours, and their geographical location. You can also review the website of the lawyer’s firms to get a better insight into how other like-minded people felt about the service they received.
The lawyer is someone who will communicate with the adversaries and those people who are a part of your case. Therefore, just how their communication should be effective in such a scenario, the same should be when they are dealing with you. Look for a lawyer with whom you can easily and effectively communicate; a lawyer should be proactive and abreast of the development of your case and should not wait for you to ask questions but rather ask them first. They should be able to help you understand the situation in an organised manner and reach out to you when necessary. You should be in the loop at all times, yet they should be professional enough not to over-communicate.
All lawyers have their own style and approach to represent their clients. Apart from them being professional at all times, they should also match your personal style and approach. You should be comfortable with the lawyers as you will have to trust them with sensitive information that can impact your case. If the lawyer is too harsh or judgemental and doesn’t work for you, you should refrain from hiring them.
Depending on your case, you should look for a lawyer who is familiar with your region. For example, cases related to real estate, medical malpractice, and workers’ compensation can be handled by a local lawyer. However, matters related to federal law will need the assistance of a national specialist to get the best results out of it. You can easily search on the internet for lawyers from different states. If you have a case in another state in which you don’t live, then it is advised to hire a lawyer from that state as they will be able to handle the matter more proactively. They can easily communicate with you over email.
Apart from the above steps, you should always consider your budget and if the potential lawyer is someone you can afford to hire. Always ask for all the fees and other payments in advance, so there are no further surprises down the road. A written contract and billing agreement must be put in place before you finalise and engage a lawyer to represent you.
Yesterday, Slater and Gordon applied for a stay on nine test cases that were brought forward by personal injury clients, but are now represented by Check My Legal Fees. The firm stated it was seriously concerned that these cases were resulting in costs burdens for claimants. However, the representative for the claimants, Robin Dunne, argued for the rejection of the application and accused Slater and Gordon of attempting to suppress former clients’ claims.
This most recent court battle comes amid an ongoing dispute between several practices representing former personal injury claimants against numerous firms. Representing Slater and Gordon, Robert Marven QC, said that some claimants had no costs protection as they were unable to obtain after-the-event insurance.
After the hearing, Slater and Gordon alleged there was a mistaken belief among claimants who believed they were protected from adverse costs awards when they were actually exposed to substantial financial risk. Representatives of the claimants want to challenge deductions for ATE insurance as well as additional costs, which were made from compensation payments.
Slater and Gordon have expressed their unwavering confidence in their retainers, customer service, and their clarity on price.
On April 22nd 2019, a group of devoted Britney Spears fans gathered outside West Hollywood City Hall, armed with banners boldly marked with the Free Britney hashtag. Dressed in her merchandise, the group played her hits and voiced their concerns for the pop star's welfare to reporters. At the forefront of their concerns was Spears’ long-running conservatorship. For nearly half of her music career, Spears hasn’t held full control over her life. Following the pop star's public breakdown in 2007, Spears was placed under a conservatorship, navigated by her father Jamie Spears. Most recently, the #FreeBritney movement has made a resurgence due to an anonymous lawyer voicing their concerns over Spears' well-being and a recent court hearing in which the pop star spoke out about the details of her conservatorship. Spears revealed she had been forced to take lithium, had been prevented from seeing friends, and had been kept from having her IUD removed despite her wishes to have another child.
Under US law, conservatorship is a legal concept allowing a judge to grant a guardian total control over a person's finances if the individual is deemed to be physically or mentally unable to manage them on their own. A conservator may be responsible for their conservatee's estate, day-to-day life, living arrangements, health decisions, and more.
Many conservators are guardians for elderly people or are the parents of developmentally disabled adults. A general conservatorship, established in a probate court by a judge, forbids the guardian to force medical treatment on the conservatee and is typically not temporary unless a person is deemed to be putting themselves at risk. A conservator must regularly report to the court that appointed them to their position.
Spears was put under conservatorship after her public breakdown in 2007. Around this time, Spears' behaviour was seemingly erratic. She shaved her head, attacked a paparazzo's vehicle with an umbrella, and was put under a "5150 hold" in a psychiatric hospital. This led to her father petitioning courts for an emergency "temporary" conservatorship, as he believed his daughter was no longer capable of managing herself and her finances amid the deterioration of her mental health.
In August 2020, Spears' court-appointed attorney stated that Spears "strongly opposed" her father's position as her sole conservator and asked the court to limit his control. She requested that her father's replacement, Jodi Montgomery, be named as conservator of her person. Montgomery, a professionally licensed conservator, stepped in temporarily as conservator in 2019 when Spears' father voluntarily took a break due to health reasons.
Last November, a judge granted Spears' wishes to appoint an outside financial group, Bessemer Trust, as co-conservator. However, Spears wants Bessemer Trust to take on sole conservatorship of her estate and for her father to be removed, which is being fought against by Spears' father and his legal team.
Spears' attorney has stated that Spears is a high-functioning conservatee who deserves to be aware of the actions that her father could be taking over her estate. Her attorney also said that Spears is afraid of her father, who she has not spoken to for a long time. In February, Spears' counsel warned it would be highly detrimental to Spears' interests to allow her father to be the sole conservator in charge of her estate. There were also warnings of potential financial, physical, and emotional abuse from Brennan-Krohn, staff attorney at the ACLU's Disability Rights Programme.
The road to the end of Spears' conservatorship is long. The first key step will be for Spears to file a formal petition to end her conservatorship, which she says she didn't even know she had the power to do until recently. Once Spears files a petition, the court will need to rule on it, accounting for whatever new evidence Spears presents to support her case. The timeline for the case depends substantially on whether her father or others involved in the conservatorship object. If they do not, the conservatorship will likely be dissolved. However, if they do object, a neuropsychologist could be appointed to assess Spears' mental health and another trial would likely be held to determine whether or not the conservatorship should end, be adjusted, or remain unchanged.
On 8 June, investigative website ProPublica released a report offering a heretofore unseen glimpse of the taxes paid by the wealthiest people in the world. Based on what it referred to as a "vast trove of Internal Revenue Service data" covering more than 15 years, the organisation confirmed long-held public suspicions that America’s richest 1% pay very little in tax. ProPublica pointed to specific household names such as Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk and Michael Bloomberg as examples of those who have at times paid no income tax on their earnings even as their fortunes swelled by billions.
Citing Forbes, the report estimated that the 25 richest people in America added $401 billion to their collective wealth between 2014 and 2018. These same people paid a collective $13.6 billion in federal income taxes over the same period – an eye-popping sum of money, but one which amounts to only 3.4% of the first figure and falls far short of the newly introduced 37% tax rate the US government has imposed on earnings above $628,300 per annum. “The IRS records show that the wealthiest can — perfectly legally — pay income taxes that are only a tiny fraction of the hundreds of millions, if not billions, their fortunes grow each year,” the nonprofit said.
The stark reality of the imbalance presented by the ProPublica report made headlines in June, its impact strengthened by its reference to genuine tax records rather than outside estimations. In addition to prompting a predictable hunt for those responsible for the leak, the report has refocused global attention on the wealth divide in the United States and how its highest-earning citizens are able to guard their vast wealth from taxation.
The report estimated that the 25 richest people in America added $401 billion to their collective wealth between 2014 and 2018.
The first and most obvious reason why the fortunes of America’s billionaires go untouched by the state is that so little of it is generated through what the US tax code considers to be conventional, taxable income. Analysis from the Tax Policy Center has found that most American households receive 60% or more of their income through wages, salaries and employment-related benefits, broadly defined as labour income. This percentage declines as earnings increase, giving way to various forms of capital income such as interest, rent, dividends or capital gains.
Capital income received by the top 1% of American earners tends to roughly equal their labour income, but as the earnings margin approaches the top 0.1%, this proportion shifts drastically in favour of capital income. Jeff Bezos, to name the most prominent example of the 0.1%, has had his Amazon salary set at $80,000 for a number of years – around 20% higher than the average middle-class income for his age bracket. This was the case in 2007, during which he reported a net income of $46 million on the back of interest and dividend payments from outside investments.
Under current US law, capital income is taxed at rates considerably lower than labour income. While wages and salaries face an individual income tax rate of up to 37%, long-term capital gains and dividends may only be taxed up to 23.8%. For the top 1% of earners who are best placed to take advantage of it, the tax disparity regarding investments makes a more significant difference, and the risks of an investment turning sour are reduced.
Under current US law, capital income is taxed at rates considerably lower than labour income.
In fact, unprofitable investments can also be made useful. Continuing with the example of Jeff Bezos, the Amazon CEO’s net worth grew by $3.8 billion in 2007 as the value of his Amazon shares doubled, which went unaccounted for in his reported income of $46 million. Under the tax code, Bezos did not owe any tax on the profit made from his surging stocks until he “realised” that profit by selling them – and if the sale were optimally timed, the capital gains tax could also be substantially lessened. Bezos did not pay any income tax in 2007; his $46 million of income was entirely offset by losses from side investment, interest payments on debt and other deductions.
Other methods of side-stepping tax also exist for the ultra-wealthy. US billionaires may buy or build a significant asset or inherit a fortune, then borrow against their wealth and fund their lifestyles with the untaxable proceeds, deducting the interest from their income tax. They may create philanthropic foundations that provide large charitable tax deductions and aid in bypassing estate tax at the end of their lives. They may also hold property until they die, providing their heirs with inherited property valued on the date of their death and avoiding capital gains tax on its growth during their lifetimes. These tax avoidance techniques are not closely held secrets or even particularly complicated to execute, yet they remain out of reach for all but the richest Americans, contributing to a concentration of wealth among the 0.1% that has accelerated sharply over the past decade.
Jos Burnett, an Associate at London law firm Slateford, argued that the blame for the scale of tax avoidance revealed in the report does not rest solely upon the billionaires themselves. “The armies of anonymous lawyers and accountants who enable this daylight robbery are blamed but rarely feel the force of any recriminations,” he said, warning that such tax avoidance schemes pose a reputational threat to those who would engage in them and place them at risk of damage in the event of a data breach.
[ymal]
Embarrassing or not for those responsible, the fact remains that the tactics described within the ProPublica report are utterly legal and unlikely to be addressed without a fundamental change in America’s tax policy.
Taxation of the ultra-wealthy is not a new issue in US politics. Former presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders built his 2020 campaign platform in large part upon the enactment of a wealth tax aimed at the top 0.1%, his suggestions echoed at times by other members of Congress. Since taking office, President Joe Biden has also signaled a willingness to hike taxes on America’s wealthiest, proposing that the capital gains tax rate be almost doubled from 20% to 39.6% in addition to raising an additional tax on inheritances.
While acknowledging the step towards addressing the tax gap, the ProPublica report took aim at these plans, concluding that whatever impact they may have on taxes paid by hedge fund managers and other high earners, “the vast majority of the top 25 would see little change." Reducing tax disparity in the US will likely require either expanding the types of income considered taxable or improving the taxation of income already taken into account by the system.
For examples of the former option, a “mark-to-market” tax on unrealised capital gains might be enormously effective if it could be made workable. At present, administrative concerns regarding the valuation of assets over time have proven too daunting to generate widespread support among lawmakers, but alternatives such as S.510 -- the March 2021 revision of Senator Elizabeth Warren’s proposed tax on the net worth of ultra-wealthy individuals – have gained some ground. A quicker fix would be the repealing of the “stepped-up basis” tax break that allows the ultra-wealthy to pass assets onto their heirs free of capital gains tax on the growth of those assets during their lifetimes.
For the latter, there are many less controversial routes the Biden administration might take. The government has already proposed amending the tax code to narrow the gap between rates on labour income and capital income. Another meaningful step would be the elimination of various tax breaks for high earners and corporations, such as those created by the 2017 tax law, and a commitment to rebuilding the IRS’s enforcement division. The agency today has fewer revenue agents than in 1954, despite the economy having grown sevenfold since then; in 2018 it audited only 3.2% of tax returns showing incomes above $1 million, down from 8.4% in 2010. Returning the IRS to strength would perhaps be the simplest step towards furthering tax compliance among the 1%.
Whether or not Congress will have the appetite for a significant retooling of the tax code remains to be seen. As things currently stand, however, the country’s resources are being funneled into fewer and fewer hands. In 1983 the top 1% of earners accounted for 33% of America’s household wealth. By 2016, that proportion had grown to 39%, and the balance continues to tip towards the minority – due in no small part to the preferential balance of American taxes.
