Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
With a flurry of Freshers settling in to their new degree programmes, a new tranche of graduates are settling in to their hard earned jobs and not all is as rosy as it seems. After years of hard work, dedication and commitment, a recent study has revealed that over two thirds of those surveyed have admitted to feeling underpaid and almost half of graduates (46%) would go as far as to say they actually feel embarrassed about their starting salary.
A recent study commissioned by Satsuma has taken a closer look into the exact relationship between graduate salary expectations and how they stack up against the going rate for average graduate starting salaries in the UK.
| Expected graduate salaries from a student perspective | Actual graduate salaries | |
| Less than £18,000 | 27% | 37% |
| £18,000 - £24,999 | 37.4% | 37.8% |
| £25,000 - £29,999 | 24.2% | 17% |
| £30,000 - £34,999 | 6.6% | 5.2% |
| £35,000 - £39,999 | 2% | 2% |
| £40,000+ | 2.8% | 1% |
Data shows that although expectations are actually fairly in line with reality, there is still a fair amount of discontent floating around with only 24% of graduates agreeing that these salaries were fair for the current cost of living.
88% of the graduates surveyed genuinely felt that the city in which they lived and worked was a significant contributing factor affecting the size of their starting salary and it comes as no surprise that London came out on top as being perceived as the highest payer. Buy what happens if you get a job in a city where you cannot afford the rent?
Exactly half of graduates feel that starting salaries are not at all in line with the cost of living, regardless of geographical variances in living costs and the proof is in the pudding with 49% of those surveyed admitting to living with parents during their first graduate job, just to sustain themselves until they get their first pay rise.
Francesca who graduated from University of St. Andrews (2017) commented, “It’s really hard for graduates in general these days. Sometimes I feel that huge companies with graduate schemes need to look more closely at the starting salaries they offer as successful candidates have already invested so much in their education and their qualifications should go a long way to ensuring that they are already able to grasp most parts of the job at hand.”
*1.14m figure based on Universities UK data verifying that in 2015–16 there were 2.28 million students studying at UK higher education institutions.
**Research undertaken amongst 500 UK graduates
(Source: Satsuma)
Here Adrian McClinton, Associate Solicitor at Coffin Mew LLP discusses the Digital Economy Act 2017 and its implications for landowners trying to get telecommunication companies to remove antennas and other apparatus from their land.
When farmers are offered a few thousand pounds each year by telecommunication companies (i.e. mobile telephone network providers) to put up antennas in empty fields, they might be forgiven for viewing this as money for nothing.
Eventually though the ‘empty field’ becomes ripe for development. Except that there is a massive antenna in the corner and nobody wants to live next to a massive antenna. But the farmer can simply ask the telecommunication company to take it away right? Wrong.
Any solicitor or surveyor who has acted for a landowner trying to persuade a telecommunication company to remove their apparatus their land will be sympathetic when I say it isn’t straight forward.
The existing legislation regulating this process is set out in the Electronic Communications Code which is currently found on schedule two of the Telecommunications Act 1984. The code contains a wealth of obstacles that landowners must overcome to compel the operator to remove the apparatus. Also, landowners cannot take steps under the code until they have extinguished rights under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.
The Digital Economy Act 2017 (DE 2017) received royal assent on 27th April 2017, and introduces a new code. It should be noted that this will only apply to agreements entered into after the Secretary of State issues regulations to bring it into effect. Please note that at the time of writing the new code is not in force. However, when it does come into force it will introduce changes that substantially impact the rights of all parties to an agreement relating to telecommunication apparatus. The most noteworthy are:
The new code requires the operator to serve a counter-notice and then subsequently apply to court within three months. The court must order the agreement to end if it finds that the landowner can substantiate any of the following:
It is important to note that under Part 4 of the new code operators can still apply to court to impose an agreement on a landowner, if certain criteria can be met and the landowner can be adequately compensated. The court has a wide discretion in relation to the terms of the agreement and the rights granted to the operator, but it must include terms relating to rent and length of term.
The rights of each party should be clearer soon hopefully, but this clarity will come at a cost to the landowner in terms of how much they can recover by way of rent and compensation.
The Government is faced with a need to continue to provide incentives to operators to invest large sums in the telecommunications infrastructure, whilst hoping to clarify the law and balance the proprietary rights of landowners. Many of the surveyors that I have spoken to since the confirmation of the new code indicate that they will find it difficult to convince landowners of the benefit of allowing operators to situate installations on their land.
The fact that the court must order the termination of an agreement if the landowner can demonstrate the need for possession of the land to re-develop is a step forward for landowners in terms of clarity. However, the introduction of a two–stage process to remove the apparatus will increase the landowners’ costs of development.
So, you’ve got like 10 exams coming up, your stress levels are high and keeping calm and composed seems impossible. Plus managing the whole thing is getting really hard. To ease the process, here Lawyer Monthly hears from Francine Ryan, lecturer in law and member of the Open Justice team at the Open University, who gives her top tips on managing the exam preparation.
Law is a competitive field and to ensure good marks it is important to prepare well. Exams are an opportunity to demonstrate what you have learned over the course of your studies and, although they can seem daunting, with the right preparation and practice you will succeed.
Firstly, you need to know what type of exam you are taking. As a law student it is likely over the course of your studies you will take a variety of different types of exams.
Essay and problem question exams
These are probably the most traditional law exams, asking you to complete a set number of questions in two or three hours. The mistake that many law students make when answering these types of questions is writing everything they know about the legal topic as opposed to answering the question asked. Planning and practice is critical to success.
Multi choice exams
The proposed SQE exam includes a variety of question formats, single best answer, extended matching questions and multiple-choice questions. The revision requires learning a lot of information. Generally speaking for each question there will be several answers which are plausible but not right and a couple which look correct. Time must be taken to narrow the choices and work out which is the correct answer. These types of exams require you to work at speed, so it is important you give yourself plenty of opportunity to practise beforehand.
Blended exams
Some exams will have a combination of multiple choice, short answers, essay and problem questions. In any type of exam, you can choose which order you answer the questions, a good strategy is to start where you feel most confident as this will encourage you and settle any nerves.
Exam success is determined by effective revision, the first step is to create a realistic timetable that breaks your revision into manageable chunks. Simply re-reading your notes or cramming the night before is not a good strategy, you need a methodical approach which includes condensing your notes into revision cards, creating plans for answering essay and problem questions, going through past papers and practising answering questions under timed conditions.
Learning cases and statutes is an important part of revision, but the ability to remember lots of different cases and statues in isolation is not helpful, you need to relate them to a legal topic so in the exam you can refer to the principles to support the points you are making. An examiner will give you very little credit for simply including a list of cases that touch upon a legal topic.
Many students feel nervous before taking an exam but that is actually a good thing because you produce adrenalin which helps sharpen your mind. Being over anxious is not helpful as it may impact on your performance so here are some suggestions to help control your nerves. The day before the check where you are going and how you plan to get there so you are not panicking on the morning of the exam. Take a bottle of water and a small snack with you, you don’t want to become dehydrated or your blood sugar to fall. Have a few notes with you which you can glance over before you go in to reassure you.
It sounds obvious but remember to breathe! Take controlled deep breaths if you start to feel anxious. If it is an essay and problem question exam, plan how you will divide your time for answering each question and make sure you stick to it! Read the questions several times to make sure you have clearly understood what is required and star the ones you think you will answer. As you read the questions you can jot down key points, cases or statutes that pop into your mind. Plan your answer first. It is tempting to start madly writing but you will produce a much clearer and more coherent answer, if you spend a couple of minutes organising your thoughts.
If it is a multiple-choice exam, answer the easiest questions first. Don’t rush because you want to avoid making careless mistakes or marking the wrong box. Go back and answer the more challenging questions. If you have time, check over your answers to make sure you have answered every question and marked the correct box. If you are running out of time just guess- there is a statistical chance that you may be right!
Avoid having a post mortem and berating yourself for forgetting a point, instead reward yourself for all your hard work. A few days later it is good idea to capture your thoughts on your revision strategy and exam technique, to think about whether you would do anything differently in the future. If you have a series of exams make sure you have lots of breaks, get plenty of sleep and eat well.
Good luck, exams can seem daunting but with good preparation you will get the results you deserve.
Over recent years, data has grown to become the most precious commodity that we have: more valuable than oil or gas and with innumerable potential uses. Below Lawyer Monthly hears from Masoud Gerami, Managing Director of Justis, who has been at the forefront of legal research technology and the digitisation of case law for the past 30 years.
Alphabet (Google’s parent company), Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Microsoft are now the five most valuable listed companies in the world. In the provision of legal services data is also increasingly important, providing a tool which law firms can use to gain competitive advantage over each other.
This does not simply mean having access to large amounts of data in the form of case law for their own sake alone; the real value lies in effective interpretation and analysis of what lies buried deep in the content. In practice, this requires offering data that is refined rather than raw, with the presentation of data in a form that lawyers can readily use to their advantage being a key concern.
Accordingly, the process of synthesising of refined data requires an ability to look at the raw data from a multi-dimensional perspective, providing a level of detail that would not otherwise be possible. This has become one of the most important factors in staying ahead of the competition, not least because of the benefits that it promises to deliver in cost, efficiency and effectiveness both for law firms and for their clients.
Every lawyer knows that our legal system generates an ever-increasing amount of raw data, yet despite the interconnectedness that comes with ever more digitisation, large volumes of unstructured and unrefined legal data are still produced, making proper management of it a universal problem. So too is deciding exactly what data to use and when to use it. Each new case that is brought adds further to the existing body of knowledge that a lawyer potentially has to accommodate and consider in their research in order to do their job effectively.
The wealth of potentially useful data stored in documents, statements and court judgments is perhaps most evident in litigation, as well as the allied issues of discovery and investigation, where its impact on legal practice has been labelled as an ongoing revolution.
In response, litigation analytics has become a discrete area of research and analysis which enables lawyers to search millions of records so that they can give better advice to clients, predict a range of possible outcomes with greater certainty, and inform their litigation strategy.
Historically, businesses have been very reluctant to get involved in most types of litigation for two very good reasons: it is often hugely expensive and it usually carries enormous risk. Unlike most other areas of business activity, both elements have usually been unquantifiable. Sometimes, however, they have no choice but to become involved. And when they do, intelligent use of data can help to provide a more accurate measure of risk and cost for business: the two key drivers at the heart of litigation analytics.
Of course, businesses have been using systems involving data analytics, and for much longer than lawyers have, in order to understand, manage and mitigate their risks in multiple areas of operation. Only recently have lawyers begun to play catch up as they increasingly turn to innovative technologies to create distinct competitive advantages in the legal market.
Drawing on a range of extensive databases can help inform those lawyers advising businesses in dispute resolution who can then make an informed value judgment about risk and cost. It also allows them to shape a distinct litigation strategy and facilitate a better prediction of the potential outcome of each case. As an example, taking into account the impact of judges’ previous decisions in related cases can provide a useful benchmark, which in turn adds to the information being considered in terms of risk and cost.
But this alone may not be sufficient. Although relevant data can certainly make dispute resolution practitioners better informed, they can only become wiser in their personal judgment about the case in which they are advising, and the potential outcome, if the available information is readily accessible and in the right format. Then, and only then, can it be easily evaluated and used to plan ahead.
A key element of modern litigation strategy therefore is thorough research of the wealth of information available. This has to fulfil two criteria; it must be both effective and comparative. Essentially, it must help to put data about previous cases into context.
Significant improvements in technology and burgeoning demand from practitioners has led to data-driven research becoming increasingly more innovative, specifically in the methods made available to lawyers in evaluating and interpreting big data. This can range from historical information about judges and lawyers, notably including the cases in which they have been involved and the decisions reached, to the different parties in dispute, and even specialist IP issues, such as patents.
However, the major databases operated and delivered by large service providers function primarily as search engines, offering relatively few tools for automated analytics. The critical element for lawyers, however, is for more value to be added by organising it in such a way that it can be analysed comparatively. This is something which is achieved through using technology to improve how we access and analyse the law, and this is the driving principle behind Justis.
Analytics of judgments and legislation can do exactly by streamlining the research process. The flagship JustisOne platform enables those conducting legal research to access the most cited parts of a judgment quickly, seeing if it has set precedent and how, as well as reviewing which other cases may support or challenge it. All of this helps to improve efficiency when building the argument in a new case.
It also helps to amplify the thinking of the lawyer and to make them more effective in working through data. However, the potential applications of technology can stretch much further than case law research alone. With the right tools at hand, practitioners are able to analyse the earlier decisions made by the judge or judges overseeing their case, and then see which precedents they have previously relied on or challenged, and so tailor the arguments used in the current case accordingly. Analysing the previous decisions of judges allows for legal professionals to make decisions that are more data driven.
Against this background, potential questions may arise as to how far analytics could go in providing additional areas which may need to be considered in legal research, and whether these may come to alter fundamentals of the profession. As more tools are released, it is vital for practitioners to ensure that these services work for them, and facilitate the application of the research and analysis skills associated with the legal profession.
For now, there can be no doubt that additional analytical tools are already assisting practitioners, and will do so to an even greater extent in the near future. The world of litigation analytic tools informing case strategy is here to stay. But in the process, lawyers should maintain their focus in using technology to help support the core task of building a strong, well-researched case.
In 2015, Prime Minister, David Cameron vowed to “end the gender pay gap in a generation”. In April this year, the government set out new rules forcing every company that employs more than 250 people to publish their pay differences by April 2018. This new legislation followed from Iceland, after it was announced that the country is to force all companies to pay all women and men equally, and receive the same salary when completing the same work.
Savoystewart.co.uk sought to investigate this issue of the gender pay gap further, and determine the average difference in pay between men and women across the UK, per annum. Savoy Stewart looked at the mean annual pay of men and women per region, using data derived from the Office of National Statistics.
Despite the gender pay gap discussed almost ‘to death’, it is still a significantly large problem in the UK. Women today still earn significantly less than men on average, and progress in their careers is often slow.
In 2016, analysis by consultants Deloitte, estimated that the pay disparity will not be eradicated until 2069. Moreover, PwC estimates that closing the gender pay gap would bring an £80 billion boost to overall female earnings in the UK – a £5,500 average pay rise for every working woman.
At present, the gap for all employees, full-time and part-time, has been decreasing, but latest figures have shown it was still at 18.1% in 2016. This figure reflects the fact part-time workers – both men and women – earn less on average per hour (85.5p for every £1 paid to a man) than their full-time counterparts and a much higher proportion of women work part-time.
Savoy Stewart wanted to regionally map the gender pay gap difference in the UK, illustrating the ‘best’ place for a woman to be paid ‘equally’ to men. Savoy Stewart found that in 2016, there was a gap of £8,840 in average full-time salaries between men and women per annum in the UK –30% more. In England, the average annual male salary was £7,339 more than that of a woman.
Unsurprisingly for some, Savoystewart.co.uk found that London had the highest pay gap between men and women’s annual salaries. Men were paid a staggering £16,451 more than the female London salary. Figures show that the south of England had the worst difference in annual salary last year; London, the South East (£9,645) and South West (£7,921) were among the top 5 regions with the highest salary difference in the UK.
Figures show that Wales was the most gender ‘equal’ region last year, with the ‘lowest’ annual pay gap in the UK; despite the fact men are still paid £5,258 more than women. The North East was the second-best in the UK, with women earning £5,844 less than men. Yorkshire had the third best gender pay gap, with £6,650 more being paid to males.
Darren Best, MD of Savoy Stewart, comments: “The gender pay gap is a major problem in the UK. Despite the fact the gender pay gap has been decreasing and activism is paving the way for equality, it is still a problem that sadly will last for many more years until a more radical approach is taken by the government to stamp out inequality.”
“Last year, men were earning 30% more than women, on average. It’s important that businesses identify this and give women in the workplace the same opportunities to prove themselves and climb the career ladder. This may mean companies would have to be more flexible in terms of working hours and working from home. Women are a valuable asset to the working world and our financial position in the UK, clearly seen in the 2016 PwC study.”
He adds: “Today, we live in a society where women must work twice as hard as men to achieve ‘equal’ pay, particularly following maternity leave. Many experience the ‘motherhood pay penalty’ and are punished by companies at the end of the year for choosing to bear children – a natural process.”
(Source: Savoy Stewart)
Supplying rebels in Yemen with missiles was “direct military aggression by the Iranian regime,” declared Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman bin Abdulaziz last week. Following this statement, Girish Thanki, solicitor at Stuart Miller, has provided Lawyer Monthly with a short breakdown of the current conflict and the situation in the middle east between Iran and Saudi Arabia.
On 4th November 2017, a missile fired from Yemen by Houthi rebels was intercepted over Riyadh, the Saudi capital. The Saudi Foreign Ministry said the investigators had established that the remains of the missile indicated it was Iranian made.
Saudi Arabia, a majority Sunni Muslim country and Iran, a majority Shia Muslim country, have been in major geopolitical conflict which has intensified since the Iranian Revolution in 2011 and Iran’s support for Syria during the Syrian Civil War.
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, occupies the majority of the Arabian Peninsula. It is the world’s largest oil producer and allied militarily to the US. It is a monarchy and considered by most to be an Orthodox Muslim country. The main language is Arabic.
Islamic Republic of Iran, formerly known as Persia, is located on the mainland of Asia, divided from Saudi Arabia by the Persian Gulf. It is a theocracy and the main language is Farsi. It is in the main anti-US and allied to Russia and China. It too is a major oil producer.
Historically, there have been many conflicts between the two countries. Their differences are in the main, rivalry for leadership of the Muslim world. There are also other causes which relate to the pricing of crude oil and support for various warring factions and countries in the Middle East.
The current conflict between the two countries is the proxy war in Yemen, a mountainous and desert -like country to the south of Saudi Arabia. Yemen was previously South Yemen, a British protectorate, and North Yemen. Having amalgamated as one country it is now known as the Republic of Yemen. It is one of the poorest countries in the region. Since 2011 it has been in a state of conflict. The Houthi tribe is in conflict with the central government headed by President Hadi. Saudi Arabia supports the internationally recognised president, whereas Iran supports the Houthi insurgents.
It is thought that Hezbollah, the largest political group in Lebanon and supported by Iran, smuggled the missile into Yemen by the sea route, having avoided the Saudi-led sea blockade of Yemen. The missiles were fired from the northern border of Yemen. Saudi Arabia has retaliated by bombing the rebel-held capital Sanaa.
While the proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran continues in Yemen, the country is suffering from an outbreak of cholera, famine and shortage of drinking water. Unicef is appealing for medical aid for Yemen.
Delivering missiles to rebels in Yemen was deemed a "direct military aggression by the Iranian regime," by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman bin Abdulaziz last week.
Below Joel Rubin, a Visiting Fellow at Carnegie Mellon University’s Heinz College and a former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, had this to say to lawyer Monthly:
Iran’s ‘Act of War’? It’s Just One of Many in the Middle East
The Middle East is experiencing multiple overlapping military conflicts that directly threaten American strategic national interests. Three theatres of multinational, multi-sectarian conflict – Yemen, Syria, and Iraq – continue to remain hot with no sign of abatement. Additionally, three flashpoints threaten to expand these layered conflicts throughout the region.
Yet even though each of these theatres is comprised of external military forces advancing their objectives on civilian terrain within each of these countries, causing massive humanitarian disasters in the process, Washington has failed to develop a strategy to calm the flames, and may in fact be fanning the embers.
In Yemen, Saudi Arabia and Iran are fighting a violent proxy war that Amnesty International has labelled as the world’s worst humanitarian crisis – and one that is entirely man made. In Syria, Russia and Iran are propping up the Assad regime while ostensibly fighting the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS); meanwhile, the United States and both Kurdish and Free Syrian Army allies are also fighting ISIS, yet not coordinating amongst each other. And in Iraq, Iran, the Iraqi Army, Iraqi Shiite Militias, and Iraq Kurds are all fighting with ISIS, and potentially with each other in Kurdistan.
These fights could potentially extend to flashpoints between Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia; Israel and the Palestinians; and amongst Lebanon’s Shiite and Sunni communities.
It is a common refrain in Washington that Iran is on the march throughout the Middle East and spreading its hegemonic ambitions with abandon. Recently Saudi Arabia claimed that Iran committed an act of war against it from the Yemen theatre. Yet an open-minded assessment of these multiple conflicts makes it clear that Iran is only one protagonist in the hot wars of the Middle East. Many other players – including allies of the United States – are in the fight.
And for the US, which has embassies in every country of the region and nearly 60,000 military personnel in Iraq, Syria, and the Persian Gulf, the stakes could not be higher.
The American goal right now should be less about focusing on one sole bad actor and more on calming down the multidimensional chess game of conflicts underway. We must not be pulled in one direction by one of the protagonists or another, sucked into their national objectives. Instead, we should seek to clarify our national goals and to advance them without prejudice towards one side or another.
In the case of Google vs. Equustek, some weeks back a Canadian Supreme Court ordered Google to eliminate a number of search results from a previous distributor that was reportedly using its sites to sell, illegally, the defendant Equustek Solutions’s IP. On November 2nd 2017, a California district court granted Google’s request for a preliminary injunction preventing US enforcement of the order. Below, Gwilym Roberts, Chairman and Partner at Kilburn & Strode, discusses the Canadian Supreme Court's decision and what it means for the prospects of more global injunctions.
As walls spring up everywhere internationally, we are seeing a counter-intuitive move towards cross-border injunctions in Intellectual Property cases. IP is becoming a test bed for remedying infringement in multiple jurisdictions, with the internet at the root of the issues.
Two recent developments are at the forefront – firstly the ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada in Google vs. Equustek, and secondly a draft EU convention on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgements. Each deals with cross-border issues in a different way – the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) by imposing an injunction which it can enforce at least in Canada if it is not obeyed globally, and the other by asking EU governments to actively sign up to mutual recognition. And each raises practical and legal issues.
In the Google case, the facts were straightforward. Canadian company Equustek Solutions sued distributor Data Link Technology Gateways for listing its products on Google as their own. The facts were agreed and so Google’s case was merely that it was not even a party (which was quickly dismissed) and that there was a “freedom of information” angle which could be breached by an injunction being awarded in other jurisdictions even if not in Canada. Google cooperated initially by de-indexing pages on Google.ca but the SCC issued a global “Google Order” requiring Google to de-list around the world.
Many rights holders have welcomed the decision as providing fair protection, but free speech organisations characterise the decision as “race to the bottom”. The SCC itself has indicated that if Google can demonstrate that the injunction does cause problems in other jurisdictions it will reconsider but points to other instances of global injunctions that have seemed acceptable including the take down of defamatory material, copyright enforcement and the EU “right to be forgotten”.
The EU meanwhile continues to strive for multi-territory enforcement. The current draft EU recognition convention proposes cross-border enforcement for a range of rights and, for now, leaves IP open for discussion. Its principal IP target may well be online infringement of the type dealt with by the SCC, but broader rights, including patents, are still up for grabs.
In any event, IP emerges as a common denominator for cross jurisdictional disputes, fuelled by the ease of infringement on the web. The internet after all provides perfect data liquidity, with IP acting as its legal vessel. However, IP law sharply defines territorial boundaries and problems emerge with the combination of the internet, information, and intellectual property.
Long before the draft recognition convention appeared, assorted enforcement initiatives had been tried in relation to IP – pan-European patent injunctions faded, the EU Criminal Enforcement Directive for IP floundered and the proposed Unified Patent Court, having tripped over Brexit, has now landed hard on a German constitutional challenge.
For now, therefore, it may well be that judicially-driven pan-territorial remedies may be the practical option rather than Directives. This raises practical considerations for rights holders. Google’s example casts light on this – Canada is evidently a huge market for them, they can’t pull out, therefore, they either need to observe the SCC injunction globally or face sanctions at least in Canada. So for other, less international companies, a consideration of where their headquarters are based may be highly relevant. Setting yourself up in a country which is less likely to issue an injunction, particularly a global one, may make some sense if you have the freedom to drop out of other risky territories.
At the moment, it remains to be seen whether courts will enforce an injunction issued in another jurisdiction, and it seems fairly unlikely without some form of international convention of the type proposed by the EU. However, economically speaking, global injunctions clearly still have teeth if they issue in commercially important territories.
As elsewhere, the internet has provoked a major rethink of how businesses operate internationally. Mixing the internet, unlimited data and the highly territorial nature of IP law creates a potent cocktail. Even in the absence of government-level cooperation we can expect to see ever more creative legal/commercial solutions to global disputes, with IP at the forefront.
Employed barristers* will now be allowed to carry out pro bono work as the Bar Council’s call for professional indemnity insurance (PII) extension to cover the employed Bar has been approved by Bar Mutual.
Under the rule change, approved at the Bar Mutual Annual General Meeting, employed barristers will now be covered by PII to carry out pro bono work via the Bar Pro Bono Unit or the Free Representation Unit. Previously, employed barristers were prevented from taking up pro bono work because of the short fall in their insurance.
Earlier this year, Chair of the Bar, Andrew Langdon QC, called for employed barristers to get the PII extension.
He said of the decision to go ahead with the proposals: “The fact is many barristers, employed or self-employed, want to do pro bono work of some kind. They should not be prevented from doing so by their insurance policies.
“By making this small change, Bar Mutual have not only freed up many barristers who were previously restricted from committing to providing free legal services via the Bar Pro Bono Unit and FRU, it has also given those people, often in dire straits, who cannot afford a lawyer a potentially wider pool of barristers who may be able to help them. Following a successful National Pro Bono Week, it is a timely boost for the pro bono legal community and I hope the employed Bar will embrace it wholeheartedly.”
Lucinda Orr, Chair of the Employed Barristers' Committee said: “Pro bono has a vital role to play in assisting members of the public who cannot afford or access the legal advice they often desperately need - the employed bar has many talented lawyers whose skills can now be deployed to help such people, and I am thrilled that the employed bar will now be able to contribute in this critical area.”
If you are an employed barrister who would like to find out more about how you can undertake pro bono work via Bar Pro Bono Unit: enquiries@barprobono.org.uk or FRU www.thefru.org.uk/volunteers/the-route-to-ratification.
*Employed barristers in ‘recognised bodies’ are already able to volunteer through the Bar Pro Bono Unit.
(Source: The Bar Council)
A specialist employment lawyer has praised a recent judgement at the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) which upheld the decision that UBER drivers are workers and are therefore entitled to increased rights including holiday pay and a national minimum wage.
Kate Gardner, a Partner with national law firm Clarke Willmott LLP, says that this type of worker is not truly independent and should be protected by employment laws in the UK relating to pay and benefits.
Last year the Employment Tribunal (ET) decided that taxi firm UBER’s business model and their contractual documentation was effectively a “sham” as it did not reflect the reality of the working arrangements. This came after several of its drivers brought ET claims for failure to pay national minimum wage and provide annual leave and holiday pay.
UBER appealed against the decision and the EAT have confirmed their agreement with the Tribunal’s finding that there was sufficient control by UBER over the drivers.
Kate Gardner said: “Essentially as soon as an UBER driver logged into the UBER app when they were working they were allocated worker status thus giving them rights under the National Minimum Wage and Working Time Regulations.
“When a driver logs in they will receive a passenger request and have 10 seconds to accept that booking through the app. Failing this, UBER assumes the driver is unavailable and locates another. If the driver fails to accept a booking, warning messages are generated which can lead to the driver’s access to the app being suspended or blocked which prevents the driver working.
“This arrangement, in the EAT’s view, shows substantial and sufficient control to warrant workers status being allocated to those drivers. The labels and terms used in the written contract were not the truthful situation, they were not truly self-employed or running their own business at any time.”
UBER argued that all their drivers are self-employed and any contract for the taxi service is between the driver and the passenger, therefore each driver is running their own small business linked by a common platform.
This notion was firmly rejected by the EAT. They confirmed that in a situation where a court or tribunal considers contractual documentation does not reflect the reality of an arrangement, then the court is entitled to disregard the terms and labels used in those written agreements and establish the true agreement.
UBER argued that drivers were at liberty to take on or refuse work and therefore there was no obligation on them and they were not at UBER’s disposal.
However, the EAT concluded that on the evidence, drivers were expected to accept at least 80% of trip request and that this very high percentage justified the Tribunal’s conclusion that in reality drivers were working at UBER’s disposal and within their full control; they were not self-employed entrepreneurs, they were truly ‘workers’ and need protective rights.
Kate continued: “This ruling has been followed by several other recent Tribunal judgments, in particular concerning cycle couriers, again who have been required to sign up to a contract as a self-employed contractor when in reality they are fully controlled by the company.
“This decision represents a trend of the generation of travel on this issue, which is that dependent individuals working in big economy businesses, may well be workers rather than genuinely self-employed. The next step is waiting to see whether the Government will act on this raft of decisions and consult on the recommendations that this area is more closely regulated.”
Clarke Willmott LLP was established in 1888 and has offices in Birmingham, Bristol, Cardiff, London, Manchester, Southampton and Taunton.
(Source: Clarke Willmott LLP)
