Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
Pain and suffering are unique human experiences, and the courts recognise that the quality of a person's life can be significantly altered due to the negligence or criminal intent of another person. Personal injury law seeks to retrieve damages from a responsible party for economic and non-economic damages.
Economic damages are those that can be calculated based on the tangible expenses that you incurred as a result of being in a car accident, slip and fall, or another type of accident. Examples of economic damages include:
● Property damage: The vehicle that you were driving at the time of the accident, or any other damage to your property as a result of the accident.
● Medical expenses: The total of your medical bills from receiving treatment for your personal injury.
● Lost earnings: If you were unable to work after your car accident but have been able to return, then the amount that you would have made had you been able to to work is calculated when determining your settlement.
● Lost future wages: However, if you have not been able to return to work, or you were disabled and will not be able to return to your prior employment, then the lost future income you would have earned is calculated based on your salary or hourly wages.
● Estimated future expenses: If your injuries will require ongoing medical treatment, such as physical therapy, then the amount that you will need to continue will be calculated.
Non-economic damages are those that cannot be calculated as easily as the ones that have been listed above. These include pain and suffering, such as disfigurement and a loss of normal life. With a diminished capacity to work, engage in family activities, and live an independent life that was enjoyed before, the quality of a person's life can be significantly diminished as well.
[ymal]
After all of your economic damages are calculated, they are then multiplied by a number between 1.5 and 5. The insurance adjuster is not going to tell you which number they choose when determining how much to offer. If there has been a loss of life or if someone is disfigured, the multiplier may be higher.
For example, if you have a job where you earn $900 a week and have been out of work for two weeks due to your injuries, then your compensation for missed time at work is $1,800. You also have a total of $3,000 that you owe for your medical care after your accident. Between your medical bills and missed work, you are owed $4,800. Your compensation would typically be somewhere between $7200 and $24,000, which is $4,800 multiplied by 1.5 and 5, respectively.
Your attorney can present your case in a way that maximises your chances of receiving the maximum compensation possible for your injuries. But keep in mind that insurance companies are trying to save money for themselves, so you need someone on your side who is fighting for your best interest. Specialist personal injury lawyers can answer questions you may have about your personal injury.
Four children and two young adults from Portugal have filed a climate change lawsuit with the European Court of Human rights in Strasbourg – the first such case that the court has received – demanding that 33 countries commit to greater emission cuts to protect their future physical and mental health and wellbeing.
The group is sponsored by the Global Legal Action Network (GLAN) and have called for the countries named in the crowdfunded suit to be issued legally binding orders to further curb emissions, with the intent of ensuring that their policies meet the 1.5 degrees Celsius goal set by the Paris Agreement.
Among the countries targeted in the suit are the UK, Germany, Norway, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine and Russia.
“Human rights arguments have been at the centre of many of the recent climate change cases brought in domestic courts in Europe,” stated Marc Willers QC of London’s Garden Court Chambers, acting as lead counsel in the case. “But in many of those cases the courts have upheld clearly inadequate climate change policies as being compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.”
“One of our aims in bringing this case is to encourage domestic courts to take decisions that force European governments into taking the action needed to address the climate emergency.”
[ymal]
The case was initiated in 2017 following a series of forest fires in Portugal that resulted in over 120 deaths. Several of the plaintiffs live in Leiria, one of the worst-affected areas.
Portugal recently reported its hottest July in 90 years.
Lawyer Monthly hears from Mark Lello, Partner, Notary Public and Head of Commercial Department at Parker Bullen and Dean Drew, Partner, Corporate & Commercial team at Lester Aldridge.
2020 will conjure up no end of mixed emotions in the future, but for many within the legal and accountancy sector, it will be the year that, out of adversity, a more harmonious working relationship was forged between like-minded firms.
There are ample examples of areas in which the two professions already work well together, but a key one is the opening and closing of businesses.
While it may not be attracting any media attention, the number of businesses stating up since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic has remained robust. The ONS reports that business incorporations were slightly lower during April and May this year at 2,372 (2,786 in 2019) but since then there has been a significant increase. Between 6 June and 31 July 2020, the average number of daily incorporations rose to 3,529 compared to 2,786 in 2019.
While these figures are good news, they likely also mean that some businesses are being established hastily. Now is the time for accountants and solicitors to work together to address the long-term issues that many new business owners will fail to evaluate, and service all of the needs of their clients.
A typical scenario comes when clients establish companies and ask accountants to prepare the necessary accounting and tax preparatory work (such as applying for a VAT registration), and the lawyers to set up the company at Companies House. Even at that early stage it would be advisable for many corporate entities which have more than one shareholder to enter into a shareholders agreement to regulate the relationship between them. This ideally involves a three way cooperation between client, legal adviser and accounting adviser, in order to ensure that the agreement is effectual.
Now is the time for accountants and solicitors to work together to address the long-term issues that many new business owners will fail to evaluate
Where collective advice is not taken – or even offered – the result in the event that shareholders fall out is that one party could be financially disadvantaged. Potentially, the business could even fail due to disagreement about the value of the shares in the company.
With a simple shareholder agreement, many of these issues could have been resolved. In its absence and where there is shareholder dispute, both accountants and lawyers will be involved – but, critically, often not the advisers that were used at inception, as many shareholders will question their ability for not having warned of potential issues which could easily have been avoided.
This is just one example of where greater cooperation between lawyers and accountants is beneficial. The issue, however, is why this cooperation has not happened effectively enough in the past and how the ‘new normal’ will impact on professional relationships.
Historically, effective cooperation has been pretty hit and miss - and often based on personal relationships rather than which firm or individual is best placed to offer the most appropriate advice to a client. There has also been an element of mistrust and the concern that clients would be poached or even receive suboptimal advice, although that was a likely result of informal relationships rather than professional ones. Where relationships did exit it tended to be in quite specific business areas such as corporate M&A activity.
Progress has been made over the last decade, especially in regional firms where genuine sector expertise exists. In these firms, taking effective professional advice, whether legal or accountancy, always involves finding an adviser with the right experience and communication skills to work with the client and professional colleagues. There has also been much greater understanding that expertise in a given specialism or business sector experience enables better client outcomes.
Progress has been made over the last decade, especially in regional firms where genuine sector expertise exists.
Furthermore, organisations have been established to help facilitate greater cooperation between lawyers and accountants, such as the UK200Group. This body represents 65 firms, of which 16 are law firms, with a combined resource of circa 500 partners and 3000 employees. Membership can help with collaboration and building connections, especially nationally.
Since COVID-19, there has been a growing realisation that expertise is not tied to geography. That said, lawyers, accountants and their clients in the mid-market do still tend to seek out appropriately experienced advisers located nearby as points of contact who bring genuine benefits, such as local knowledge, experience and contacts.
Also since COVID-19, clients and advisers alike are often more attuned to the fact that some of the historic geographic barriers have disappeared and where specific knowledge is not available locally they can look further afield. As advisers we must be cognisant that this is easier since we all took video conferencing for granted as a means of engaging with clients. This is one area where organisations such as the UK200Group can be of great value as UK-wide introductions are far easier.
While we don’t know what the ‘new normal’ will be I expect video calls and conferencing to continue to be an alternative to face to face meetings. It is not a like for like replacement, but is – and I am sure post COVID-19 is likely to remain – an integral mix in how lawyers, accountants and their clients do business in the future, particularly as flexible working is likely to be one of the lasting changes resulting from working through the current pandemic.
Video conferencing has also added other options for accountants and lawyers to work more closely. For example, mutual training has always existed but it has traditionally meant considerable time spent out of the office due to travel.
[ymal]
Going forward I would expect joint training in M&A in particular to be more prevalent as a result of video conferencing as it can benefit both lawyers and accountants to understand their respective roles. For example, in relation to the determination of a transaction price by the use of completion accounts and what is known as a “lock-box” price determination process, M&A transaction and fund-raisings are part process and part advisory.
In conclusion, lawyers and accountants in the mid-market could certainly benefit from far closer mutual cooperation, from understanding one another’s processes and an overview understanding of regular key issues.
In the post-pandemic world, I would hope and expect to see greater collaboration amongst lawyers and accountants in this area ultimately for the benefit of clients. I would also encourage lawyers especially to look at organisations that facilitate greater cooperation such as the UK200Group.
On Wednesday, the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Apple must pay over 12,000 retail employees in California for time spent in mandatory off-the-clock security screenings.
The 12-page, unanimous opinion from a three-judge panel reversed a 2015 decision by a California judge which held that security checks could not be counted as work and could have been avoided by employees choosing not to bring bags.
The Ninth Circuit panel found that time spent on an employer’s premises while compulsory exit searches were conducted was compensable under state labour law, citing California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 7 and concluding that the “language and history” of components of the definition of “hours worked” described in the Order suggest that Apple employees are entitled to pay for time in which they are subject to company control.
Apple requires all personal bags, packages and Apple brand devices belonging to employees be subjected to searches by a manager or security before the owner is allowed to leave company property for any reason, including breaks and the end of shifts. Employees must also clock out before these searches are conducted.
Time spent waiting for and submitting to searches usually ranges from between five and twenty minutes, though some employees claim to have waited for up to 45 minutes for bag checks on busy days.
[ymal]
McLaughlin & Stern’s Brett R Gallaway, representing the employees bringing the class action suit, said in a statement to Law360 that they were “very pleased with the Ninth Circuit’s decision and believe it correctly resolved a long-standing and disputed issue of liability.”
Prior evaluation of the case has suggested that Apple could have to pay as much as $60 million in compensation if it is required to offer employees back pay for time spent undergoing security checks.
Anne-Marie Winton, Partner at Arc Pensions Law LLP, examines the role of the Pensions Regulator in imposing joint and several liability on group companies.
Defined benefits (or final salary) pension schemes are often a group’s largest unsecured UK creditor by far, possibly representing hundreds of millions of pounds of contingent liabilities for the group employers who participate in the scheme.
In law, these liabilities sit solely with the companies who have joined the scheme by entering into a formal deed of adherence or participation with the scheme’s trustees. Usual privity of contract rules apply. However, it is possible for the Pensions Regulator (“TPR”) to shatter privity and impose joint and several liability on other group companies – anywhere, worldwide. Examples of countries where TPR has sought to use its UK powers include Bermuda, Canada, and Russia, as well as the UK of course. The source of these wide-ranging powers, known as “moral hazard” or “anti-avoidance” powers is the Pensions Act 2004. Potential targets are those group companies who are “connected and/or associated” with an employer in the scheme (broadly those who can exercise one-third or more voting control). Directors and shareholders can also be at risk of being ordered to pay money into the scheme, without any allegations of fault or bad faith being needed.
Many household names have been the subject of (often, adverse) Government and press attention in relation to their underfunded defined benefits schemes, almost inevitably combined with some form of investigation or intervention by TPR having taken place or about to take place. TPR has itself faced extremely public criticism for, in effect, failing to intervene early and forcefully enough to stop weak and failing businesses from collapsing before they have taken steps to support their pensions liabilities. This led it to launch a 3 year plan in 2018 with the aim of taking a clearer, quicker and tougher approach to driving up standards in the pensions sector. In particular, TPR’s Chairman said that we could expect to see a more vocal Regulator, intervening quickly and decisively through use of its moral hazard powers.
Examples of countries where TPR has sought to use its UK powers include Bermuda, Canada, and Russia
But why the interest by Government in private companies’ corporate behaviour? This is because TPR was set up under the Pensions Act 2004 to be a “referee” in relation to regulating the UK’s workplace pension schemes, and it needs to be seen to use the full range of its statutory powers as a referee in order to fulfil its statutory objective of protecting the benefits of scheme members.
In practice, the very occasional use (or threatened use) of TPR’s moral hazard powers are made public when it publishes reports under section 89 of the Pensions Act 2004. These reports are designed to educate and encourage best practice from employer and groups (and those who advise them) in supporting their scheme long-term, even in challenging situations. And COVID-19 has of course increased the pressure on employers not to default on meeting their pensions liabilities.
Taking a look at some of the section 89 reports from 2020 throws a light on TPR’s likely behaviour and its clearer, tougher, quicker approach. These covered the distressed cases of Arcadia, House of Fraser and Bernard Matthews. The focus of the reports broadly was: (1) had any corporate activity had taken place which made the scheme employer(s) less able or potentially less able to meet their financial obligations to the scheme; and (2) if so, was it reasonable for TPR to require a third party target to step into that employer’s shoes to fund the scheme and/or guarantee the liabilities of that employer?
In all three cases, TPR investigated over periods of time from months to just over a year (which is “quicker” in TPR terms), and required statutory disclosure of thousands of documents at times (which may equate to it being ‘tougher”), but in the end did not use its moral hazard powers. However, TPR’s intervention facilitated an improved mitigation offer to the trustees of Arcadia’s schemes, sufficient to get them to vote in favour of the rent reducing Company Voluntary Arrangement. It satisfied itself that the administration and sale of House of Fraser to Sports Direct on one day was not designed simply to dump the scheme on the Pension Protection Fund (the lifeboat for the defined benefits schemes of insolvent employers). And it thoroughly kicked the tyres on the attempted rescue of Bernard Matthews, which started with private equity investment in 2013 taking security ranking ahead of the pension scheme, and ended with a pre-pack in 2016.
[ymal]
Its conclusions were that the terms of the original investment was not materially detrimental to the pension scheme, the 20% high-risk interest rate was in line with what was on offer in the private equity market at the time and negotiated on an arm’s length commercial basis, and that the subsequent decline in the business were due to external events, not the actions of the investor. It accepted that the investor necessarily wanted to maximise the return on its investment when its turnaround attempts came to an end, but that there was nothing untoward in carrying out a pre-packaged administration to do this.
It is probably not possible to overestimate the potential reputational damage of being on the “wrong end” of an investigation by the Pensions Regulator (just ask Sir Philip Green). But this risk can be mitigated by groups taking the right advice at the right time (which is likely to involve a number of commercial and legal areas), and involving all relevant pensions stakeholders (trustees, TPR and PPF) as transparently and early as possible if there appears to be any risk that the employers may or are becoming less able to continue to meet their liabilities to the scheme whether due to corporate distress, or simply vanilla corporate activity like payment of dividends granting security ahead of the scheme or even internal group reorganisations.
Lawyer Monthly hears from Tina Chander, partner at leading Midlands law firm Wright Hassall, on the growing importance of settlement agreements in the corporate climate of 2020.
According to Judge Barry Clarke, the President of the Employment Tribunals, there is likely to be a noticeable increase in unfair redundancy claims as businesses restructure their teams to cope with the financial pressures of the furlough scheme ending.
Unfortunately, redundancy-related dismissals will be unavoidable for many employers, which will undoubtedly lead to an increase in settlement agreements, as businesses look to reduce the risk of future tribunal claims.
Described as a legal contract between employer and employee, a settlement agreement provides the employee with an enhanced redundancy package, in return for them not pursuing any claims against the employer.
This can relate to any issues that have arisen during the employment, its termination or the redundancy process, protecting businesses from any long-running or costly disputes.
Given the ongoing financial uncertainty many businesses face, there will be a need for quick action, with redundancies coming thick and fast once the furlough deadline expires later this year.
Whilst businesses will strive to achieve an amicable split from employees, it’s impossible to guarantee that every redundancy will be straightforward, especially given the stressful nature of the pandemic and the uncertain re-employment prospects. When emotions are running high, proceedings can become more challenging, so a settlement agreement will help both parties agree certain terms, so they can achieve a ‘clean break’.
With an agreement in place, employees will waive their right to bring any claims against their employer, in return for a fair financial package that is much higher than they would usually receive, which could make a significant difference to an employee’s personal situation.
With an agreement in place, employees will waive their right to bring any claims against their employer
It is important to note, however, that a Settlement Agreement cannot compel an employee to waive their right to claim for any personal injury which the employee was not aware of at the date of signing of the agreement, or pursue a claim for accrued pension rights, or to enforce the actual terms of the Agreement itself.
In some cases, there may have been a past incident that has come to light, as the employee in question feels aggrieved at the prospect of redundancy. Although it may have been addressed at the time, employers could use a settlement agreement to avoid any unnecessary employment tribunals, especially if there’s a risk of compensation being awarded.
Before an agreement can be reached, terms must be mutually agreed between both parties and outlined in written statement agreement documents, explicitly detailing which claims the employee agrees not to pursue. These agreements should be customised for the specific employee and their individual circumstances, including a clearly expressed waiver of the specific claims.
With regards to the settlement payment, the agreement should also contain a clear breakdown of the payments which have been agreed and whether any of them are to be paid tax-free.
Most settlement agreements will include a confidentiality clause, which requires the employee to keep the terms of the agreement, the settlement amount and the reasons for the agreement confidential.
It’s important to remember that a settlement agreement has no set scale of payments, as the outgoing costs can vary with each case.
There are several key factors to consider when deciding the amount, which include:
[ymal]
It’s not uncommon for the business to cover or contribute to the individual’s legal costs, as they are required to seek independent legal advice on the terms of the agreement.
This statutory requirement, set out in section 203(3) Employment Rights Act 1996, states the legal adviser must be named in the agreement and have relevant insurance to cover the advice given.
This can vary between businesses, but the amount of this contribution is typically capped between £250 - £500, which should be outlined in a clause within the settlement agreement.
October’s deadline for furlough support will be a challenging time for employers and employees alike, especially as businesses face the difficult task of restructuring to cope with mounting financial pressures.
However, with question marks surrounding their long-term survival, businesses will have to make some tough decisions, including largescale redundancies, to weather the storm and protect themselves. Therefore, it’s crucial that the process runs smoothly, with both parties achieving a ‘clean break’ using settlement agreements. This will ensure the best possible outcome is secured, allowing everyone to move forward positively.
If your business is considering redundancies, then it’s important to contact a team of experienced employment lawyers, who will advise you on how to proceed safely and effectively.
The Trump administration has ordered a nationwide ban on evictions until the end of 2020, which will be enacted through the Centres for Disease Control (CDC).
43 million residential renters in the US will be covered by the order, provided that they do not expect to earn over $$99,000 this year (or $198,000 for joint filers). However, an administration official said the government does not expect to see an “overwhelming” number of people making use of the programme.
In the order, the CDC stated that the goal of the new measure is to stem the spread of the COVID-19 outbreak in America.
The order represents the US government’s most sweeping measure of its kind to date, coming in response to fears that a wave of evictions could result in millions of people who have lost income due to the COVID-19 pandemic could be forced out of their homes.
[ymal]
However, the new measure has received a mixed reception. Diane Yentel, CEO of the National Low Income Housing Association, described her initial reaction as “a feeling of tremendous relief”, but noted that without any monetary backing, renters would still face a financial cliff once the order expires in 2021.
The National Apartment Association said that the new order would exacerbate the country’s housing affordability crisis and overturn the rental housing industry. Property owners would “face a financial crisis of their own” if left unable to receive payments, the organisation stated.
A Delaware judge ruled on Monday that neither Anthem Inc. nor Cigna Corp. can receive damages in the fallout from their failed 2015 merger, ending a years-long legal battle that he referred to as a “corporate soap opera”.
“Neither side can recover from the other. Each must deal independently with the consequences of their costly and ill-fated attempt to merge,” wrote Vice Chancellor J Travis Laster in his decision.
Anthem and Cigna originally struck the merger deal in 2015, wherein Anthem, which manages several Blue Shield and Blue Cross affiliates, planned to buy Cigna for over $54 billion. If successful, the merger would have created the largest health insurance provider in the US.
However, divisions sprouted regarding Cigna CEO David Cordani’s role in the new company. Originally slated to begin as President and COO of the company before succeeding to the CEO position after Anthem’s Joseph Swedish. During organisational planning, Cordani’s role was broadened and no clear path of succession was left, according to court documents.
The merger was eventually blocked by the DOJ in 2017 over antitrust issues, and Cigna sued Anthem to terminate the merger agreement. Anthem filed a suit of its own to continue the merger. Once the merger was ruled against by a Delaware appeals court, Anthem gave up the deal but refused to pay Cigna the $1.85 billion breakup fee that the company was seeking, or a further $13 billion in damages for losses to shareholders.
[ymal]
Anthem then sought $21 billion from Cigna, claiming that it deliberately sunk the deal by refusing to push back against opposition by the DOJ.
"Although Anthem proved that Cigna breached the [merger] efforts covenants, Anthem failed to prove that Cigna's breaches led to causally related damages," Laster wrote, also noting that Cigna’s opposition to the deal was clear throughout the saga. “Each party must bear the losses it suffered as a result of their star-crossed venture.”
An Anthem spokesperson wrote in an emailed statement that the company was happy with the decision to strike down the $1.85 billion breakup fee. “We believe this decision is in the best interests of Anthem and our stakeholders,” they wrote.
In a Monday statement, Cigna said that it was pleased by the finding that the company did not cause the merger to fail. "We continue to strongly believe in the merits of our case, and we are evaluating our options with respect to appeal," Cigna said.
Toby Pettinger, Managing Director at MXTreality, outlines the benefits the legal sector stands to gain by becoming an early adopter of virtual reality solutions.
Before we look at the benefits of training lawyers with Virtual Reality and what’s possible, it’s important to first explain what we mean by the term and define what it is and what it is not. Most people think they understand what Virtual Reality is, but tend to use the term as a catch-all descriptor for Virtual, Augmented and Mixed Reality solutions.
Augmented Reality (AR) adds digital elements to the live view being experienced, typically by using the camera on a smartphone, like searching for virtual Pokemon Go characters in the real world.
Virtual Reality (VR) requires a totally immersive experience that typically replaces the world entirely, with headsets transporting users into a number of real-world and designed environments.
Mixed Reality (MR) combines elements of both AR and VR with scenarios that integrate real-world and digital objects to deliver realistic experiences.
The leading advocates in the sector now talk of ‘immersive environments’, which require more than just visual realism and include spatial sound, touch, motion and even heat/cold to increase the realism for trainees.
A totally immersive environment requires as many senses as possible to be stimulated, as recognised by Jonathan Steuer in his 1993 paper Defining Virtual Reality: Dimensions Determining Telepresence. This sense of immersion within a created environment, where the viewer not only sees but interacts with objects, is critical to the suspension of disbelief and ultimately the quality of the outcome, whether it’s for entertainment or learning.
The leading advocates in the sector now talk of ‘immersive environments’, which require more than just visual realism.
The desire to create totally immersive MR environments is not just driven by a need to create scenarios difficult or dangerous to achieve in the real world, but to improve the training of skills already well-catered for with traditional methods. The construction industry has been one of the early adopters, recognising the benefit of safe, cost-effective, endlessly repeatable in virtual reality training for potentially dangerous situations, like crane operations, learning to drive a telehandler or spotting on-site hazards.
The idea of Virtual Reality as a training aid, not just to supplement but replace more traditional training methods is gaining wider acceptance, like the way surgeons practice their skills before they meet live patients.
Studies like the “Randomized, Controlled Trial of a Virtual Reality Tool to Teach Surgical Technique for Tibial Shaft Fracture Intramedullary Nailing”, show what’s possible when VR training scenarios are expertly constructed.
Last year’s study at the University of California, Los Angeles School of Medicine divided 20 participants into two groups, one to receive traditional training and the other VR training. Once training was complete, the participants repaired a fracture in the tibia of an artificial model, with the results graded by an expert observer with no knowledge of the training each surgeon received. Compared to those traditionally trained, the VR trained participants achieved an overall rating 230% higher, finishing 20% faster and completing 38% more of the steps set out in a checklist.
Even relatively dry subjects can now be made experiential to engage more closely with participants, whether to simulate a setting or scenario, like a tribunal, or the layout of courtroom, even down to the detail of a specific location to put attendees at ease. High-quality 360-degree photography has been used very effectively for simple familiarisation of particular courtrooms, but more can be done.
Even relatively dry subjects can now be made experiential to engage more closely with participants.
Experiential learning can bring a different standpoint to understanding the importance and impact of, for example, the Modern Slavery Act, with individuals able to experience the issue from the perspective of the persecuted. Immersive environments can bring to life the real-world experience of an abused partner, for instance with the sights and sounds of their existence made real for the trainee.
And it’s not just crash-test dummies in cartoon worlds. Software perfected to create the facial expressions of the Hulk in Marvel’s 'Avengers: Endgame', bring the virtual characters to life and ensure non-verbal communication is recognised to improve immersion and improve training outcomes. The viewer will react as the subtlest of facial expressions gives away the true feelings of the virtual character; fear, surprise, anger, pain, bewilderment, confusion are all possible and endlessly repeatable in different scenarios to help lawyers perfect their interactions with real people.
These same accurate portrayals of human emotions by virtual characters can also help law firms challenge any inherent bias within the firm and within their clients’ businesses, easily showing individuals what it’s like to face the outcome of bias to help change future behaviours.
The future is not all about VR as entertainment or the necessary technology, but how real empathy training can bring a wider understanding to complex issues, for the benefit of all concerned.
With access to a Court or the scene of a crime, or an accident, VR professionals can quickly build an immersive experience that allows witnesses, jurors, lawyers and even judges to walk the scene themselves, to fully understand the situation and see what could or could not have happened.
[ymal]
Immersive experiences can help a law firm prepare clients and witnesses for their forthcoming court experience, with views of the actual courtroom recreated in highly detailed virtual reality to allow users to walk the room and envisage their position from every angle.
When firms sometimes have a learning day involving actors and/or their peers to help train more junior fee-earners, these can be replaced by Virtual Reality solution that can be repeated endlessly, with each new intake of training contracts. Not only is this a more cost-effective, flexible, immersive and enjoyable experience that will undoubtedly improve the learning procedss, but one that pitches the firm as a leader that understands the benefits of integrating the latest technology into its business.
Adoption in the Legal Sector has been slower than others in which application may be more immediately obvious. However, a growing recognition that outcomes can be improved, training can now involve empathy and emotion as well as hands-on experience, means that we’ll see greater traction in the year ahead.
Below are a few tips worth keeping in mind when going through a divorce.
Reaching a settlement should be the goal, and it must be fair for both parties. Adopt a realistic aspiration from the start to avoid prolonging the litigation process and incurring unnecessary costs.
Only the adults should deal with the issues related to the separation or divorce; it should not be done with the kids around. The children must be protected from the emotional turmoil that can arise from the disagreement. Avoid speaking badly about your partner in front of the children.
Family lawyers Kessler and Solomiany advise that, when working with family lawyers, you should keep in mind that they charge by the hour. That means your legal fees will go higher and higher the more work you instruct them to do. But if you discuss matters and iron out most of the issues with your spouse, you lessen the advocate’s work, thereby lowering the legal fees. As a result, you might end up with more money to distribute between the two of you after completing the divorce or separation process.
That said, some relationships are abusive or violent. Avoid endangering yourself by trying to discuss things with your spouse if you are in such a relationship.
Family lawyers Kessler and Solomiany advise that, when working with family lawyers, you should keep in mind that they charge by the hour.
Prepare adequately for the first meeting. Strive to ensure that you have a brief summary of all parties involved in the matter, which you will present to your lawyer. Also, list down the marital assets and liabilities. Ensure your advocate is aware of any concerns or ideas that you might have in mind.
You must have a precise communication method with your spouse and attorney so that you can pass on any concerns when they arise instead of postponing them.
You might have that friend or colleague that has read the “Reader’s Digest Guide to Law.” Such friends are quick to offer suggestions thinking they know best. Exercise caution when picking advice from them. Moreover, keep in mind that you are paying your lawyer a substantial amount to provide you with sound advice on the best way forward with the divorce.
The circumstances surrounding your case will differ from your friend's, hence the need to refer with your attorney to help you understand why. The course of every divorce or separation is unique, and thus each will follow a different strategy and have a different outcome.
When it comes to divorce, you are expected to state that your marriage has broken down and the situation is irretrievable. The reason for things ending up where they are can range from unreasonable behavior to adultery. However, the court will not care much about who is seeking separation or divorce and on what basis.
[ymal]
As such, you outlining your spouse’s many failures will probably have little impact on the matter, especially given how delicate the situation might be. Therefore, consider alternative grounds for the separation or divorce, like a two-year separation and consent.
Issue an unreasonable behaviour petition only if you have no alternative options, ensuring that you abide by the Law Society Protocol. Keep all allegations to a minimum while trying to agree with your spouse about the various things to include or exempt before issuing the petition.
“Can I sell my valuable assets to a relative for a pound?” is one of the questions that often arises in divorce cases. Such action is never a bright idea. The courts will take a tough stance against the disposal of valuables with the aim of defeating a claim for ownership or financial provision in a divorce case.
When a sale or transfer is made with the objective of depleting available assets, the aggrieved or wronged party should start injunction proceedings with appropriate orders made by considering the costs involved.
Seek legal advice from your attorney if you have any reservations about the situation or suspect your spouse might be taking steps to dispose of marital assets.
It might be a sensible thing to do, but it is not what many people do when it comes to divorce. The more the disagreements are prolonged, the more legal fees are incurred, and subsequently, the fewer resources are left to divide amongst yourself after settling the matter.
That is why the best route to reach a favourable agreement for both of you on matters related to the children or finances after receiving legal advice. The terms of the settlement can be recorded and binding as stipulated in a Court order.
The more the disagreements are prolonged, the more legal fees are incurred.
Always remember that what you share on social networking websites can be copied and reposted. It can be used as evidence against you. Do not post anything related to the court proceedings or materials showing your family, especially the children. The courts tend to have a very dim view of such behavior, which can even amount to contempt of court.
