Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
Post-Pulse, post-Las Vegas, there was a flurry of gun legislation. Where does it stand? What happened with the bump stock legislation?
You’ve heard it everywhere, 2018 is the year for implementing new technologies and becoming more efficient. But 2018 is also the year of cyber risk, so how do you strike a balance? Paul Taylor, Partner and UK Head of Cyber Security at KPMG discusses with Lawyer Monthly why a shift in thinking is needed in the way we think about the role of cyber in business risk planning.
In the race to improve efficiency, increase productivity and outstrip rivals, the adoption of new technologies is now a permanent characteristic of the business landscape. The prospect of rapid productivity gains and breakthrough opportunities is driving organisations to automate processes, connect systems and leverage new kinds of infrastructure before the competition can. However, the reliance on competiveness through technological adoption has blurred the boundaries between devices, systems and employees, creating new vulnerabilities that are increasingly exploited by cyber criminals and nation-state backed groups.
In today’s digital landscape, connected medical devices provide physicians with faster and more accurate patient diagnoses, whilst retrofitted smart sensors allow production equipment to automatically signal to other devices once a process is complete and when the next processes need to begin, speeding up manufacturing time and efficiency. At the other end of Industry 4.0, rail providers adopt real-time cab signalling and traffic management systems, which have the potential to add time to train pathways and avoid the need for extra lines of track by increasing capacity on existing lines. In the public sphere, vehicle manufacturers race to deploy driverless cars with the latest automated control systems and sensory equipment, designed to help identify safe navigation paths, obstacles and traffic light systems.
The unrelenting pursuit of better, faster and more efficient ways of deploying and creating technology has driven innovation in our businesses and across our economy, ensuring the UK is a world leader in a multitude of industries. Yet this position at the top of the leader board has to an extent come at the cost of security. The current nature of cyberspace means it is far easier and simpler for malicious actors to carry out vulnerability-based attacks over targeted hacking campaigns. Taking full advantage of the constantly evolving technological landscape, hostile individuals and criminal groups invest their time researching digital infrastructures and devices in order to design attack software that exploits vulnerabilities and weak points.
This kind of exploit-based hacking was seen when criminals took advantage of an overlooked vulnerability in Sony’s computer systems, which gave them full access to the company’s wider network. The alleged group behind the attack crippled the company network before they released sensitive corporate data, including four unreleased films, business plans, contracts and the personal emails of senior staff – having a huge impact on the business. Such attacks are not only restricted to large company networks. Advances in the UK’s rail signalling system to upgrade to a ‘connected network’ have also been shown to be vulnerable to hackers who could use software to tell a train that it’s speeding up when it is slowing down or even give a false location. These fears were almost realised last year when it was revealed the UK rail network had been compromised in four major ‘exploratory’ cyber-attacks. In Finland, hackers hit a building management system with a distributed denial of service (DDoS) attack that left residents with no central heating and in 2015, Chrysler was forced to recall 1.4 million cars after security researchers revealed that the vehicle’s internet-connected entertainment system could be hacked. To add the icing on top, at last year’s cyber security contest DEF CON, contestants found 47 vulnerabilities in 23 IoT devices, including smart door locks, refrigerators, and solar panel arrays.
Whether it’s increased connectivity, automating systems or upgrading networks, organisations – both public and private – are finding themselves dependent on new technological capabilities long before they have even begun to consider how they are leaving them open to cyber-attacks.
Many businesses are taking steps to begin to deploy things like RegTech (Regulatory Technology) as part of preparation for regulations such as GDPR and MiFiD II, possibly taking this more seriously due to the fact that the cost of non-compliance is clear and outlined, however the impact and cost of a cyber hack could be just as bad, so there needs to be a shift in thinking – a cyber hack is not just a cyber hack, it’s a risk to the whole business.
The impact that these kinds of attacks can include lost revenue, losses to intellectual property and customer loyalty and reputational damage. The practice of innovation at the expense of security cannot therefore be maintained, and leaders need to start to think of a lack of security for what it really is – a risk to the whole business.
As outlined in a recent white paper on cyber security business risk by information security professionals body (ISC)2 titled, ‘What Every Business Leader Should Know About Cyber Risk’ organisations must ultimately incorporate cyber into the wider risk plan of the business. Within this, key operational dependencies that are being overhauled, upgraded or introduced must be identified and any critical technology that needs protection must be prioritised. This could be your organisation’s server network, the website upon which your customer’s financial trades take place or even individual devices. Bringing the CISO into risk evaluation discussions should also be made compulsory going forward.
Technological transformation is an inherent part of the world in which businesses operate, but in order to mitigate the threat, accepting cyber security as a business risk is paramount. Cyberattacks are only going to increase and businesses are offering hackers an open door by failing to incorporate cyber security within the risk register. If the uptake in new capabilities by businesses is to be maintained securely, then cyber security must come become a deciding factor in the implementation of any technology.
The American Bar Association’s accreditor of law schools is proposing to eliminate the requirement that ABA-approved law schools secure scores for a “valid and reliable” test for incoming classes as long as other measures indicate the school has “sound admission policies and practices.”
At its meeting in Boston on Nov. 3rd, the Council for the ABA Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar took the significant first step toward accepting one of the options proposed by its Standards Review Committee by putting the proposal out for “notice and comment.”
The proposed change emerged after a spirited discussion during the council’s near 5½-hour open session. At the meeting, council members considered a number of proposals and recommendationsfrom its Standards Review Committee. At its two-day meeting, the council also considered school accreditation matters behind closed doors consistent with its rules that require confidentiality.
Under a preliminary timeline, the earliest the proposal (known as Option 1 under Standard 503 in this memorandum) could affect first-year law students would be for classes starting fall 2019. Under the proposal, an admissions test remains one of the factors that a school can consider, along with grade-point average and other indicators of future performance. Schools would still have to report publicly results for each test they accept.
Any test change would signify a radical departure in law school admissions as the LSAT, administered by the separate Law School Admissions Council, has become a staple of law school admissions procedures since it was first administered nearly 70 years ago in 1948. In the past two years, however, several schools have announced they would begin accepting the GRE as an alternative admissions test. Current Standard 503, which covers admissions procedures, only requires a “valid and reliable test” be used in the admissions process. That standard remains in effect until any change takes place.
Pamela Lysaght, chair of the council’s Standards Review Committee which offered the change, said the current standard is “rather toothless” because it does not include any minimum test score or other required threshold. She said if the change is enacted, law schools would still be reviewed for “outcome issues” under Standard 501, which would be changed to say, “a law school shall admit only applicants” who appear capable of completing a legal education and being admitted to the bar.
Lysaght and Barry Currier, the managing director of the section, both stressed that under the proposed change the council could direct any school to require an admissions test as “remedial action” if, for instance, a low bar passage rate, attrition or other facts suggested a school was accepting less capable students.
The council is recognized as the national accreditor of law schools by the U.S. Department of Education. Under its rules, changes in standards, such as to Standard 503, would be reviewed by the ABA House of Delegates, which next meets in February 2018. The House could concur or ask that a change be considered. But the council retains the power to move ahead with any decision after two considerations by the House.
Two other major changes were also considered by the council, and it decided not to proceed on either for now.
The council again considered its previously adopted change to bar passage Standard 316. In February, the House of Delegates rejected the council’s request to make Standard 316 more straightforward and simple. Now, the standard considers first-time bar takers, statewide score averages and five-year “ultimate” bar passage rates. Council Chair Maureen O’Rourke, dean of Boston University School of Law, termed the current formula as “byzantine.”
The council has embraced a two-year ultimate bar passage rate of 75 percent of those who take the bar exam, which is typically administered by states twice a year. While the council first voted 9-8 to take that proposal to the House in February, it reconsidered in light of the closeness of the vote. Instead, the council will explore how best to get more support from legal education stakeholders who oppose the change. Some critics fear the change would have a disparate impact on law schools with significant numbers of minority students, whom studies have shown traditionally don’t do as well on standardized tests, which is also a concern of the council. But a survey in which nearly half of the 204 ABA-accredited schools voluntarily replied suggested the change might not be a major problem to meet.
The council also rejected a Standards Review Committee proposal to revise Standard 403 (see Appendix B) to allow for more adjunct faculty members in the second and third years of law school. Advocates said this would provide more faculty flexibility and allow innovation, and lighten the regulatory burden. But other council members expressed concern that too many adjunct faculty members would dilute the law school experience.
In other action the council:
For more information on the council meeting, including reports and recommendations, click here.
(Source: ABA)
Specialist industrial disease lawyers acting for a Leeds man, who suffers from mesothelioma due to being exposed to asbestos during his employment decades ago, have secured a landmark agreement with the defendant insurers to cover the future costs of his cancer treatment.
The claimant, who is to remain anonymous for legal reasons, instructed specialist asbestos-related disease lawyers at Irwin Mitchell’s Leeds office after he was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2015.
Mesothelioma is a cancer of the lining of the lung commonly associated with exposure to asbestos. It takes decades before symptoms begin to show but once they do the disease is very aggressive causing much distress to those affected and their family and friends.
The landmark agreement in this case creates a Periodical Payments Order and means that a settlement did not have to wait until the claimant’s treating doctors actually advised that he should receive immunotherapy treatment, thereby avoiding the need to estimate treatment costs ahead of time in an area of breath-taking change both in terms of the drugs available and their cost.
It will ensure he will have enough funds to cover the cost of any such treatment in future, no matter what that treatment is and no matter how long it lasts for. This is the first of its kind for mesothelioma cases.
Ian Toft, a Partner at Irwin Mitchell and the asbestos-related disease specialist representing the man, said: “This is a landmark agreement which provides security for a man who needs it due to his devastating mesothelioma diagnosis.
“Sadly, this is one of numerous cases where an employee has been failed by their employer by not being provided with the necessary safety equipment to protect them from the harmful asbestos dust and fibres that were present during parts of their working life many years ago.
“The Order helps eradicate some of the uncertainty that comes with settling this type of claim. Treatments are constantly developing and with this, so are the costs. Unfortunately none of the treatment available to this Claimant can be obtained on the NHS, free of charge.
“This Order has now put the structure in place to ensure that whenever the treatment is needed, it is covered. It gives our client some much needed peace of mind at such a difficult time of his life.”
The key features of the landmark agreement are:
The claimant is believed to have been exposed to asbestos while working with asbestos insulation board sheets when employed by John Atkinson & Sons Limited. These would need to be cut, by hand, to size which created dust that would linger and leave him exposed.
Jeremy Roussak, at Kings Chambers in Manchester, who was instructed by Irwin Mitchell as their Junior Counsel (together with Michael Rawlinson QC), added: “It is pleasing to see that the insurers involved in this case have taken the pragmatic step of agreeing a form of Periodical Payments Order.
“If this agreement is used regularly it will help both sides involved in asbestos litigation. Victims will be given the assurance that should they need immunotherapy or biological therapy in the future then the funds will be made available for it indefinitely.
“Insurers will benefit from it because it will save them from making any payments at the time of settlement towards the anticipated costs of immunotherapy which may never in fact occur if the victim is not considered suitable for it. It will also speed up claims by removing any need to wait to see whether immunotherapy (or biological therapy) is to be provided and if so, in what form.
“Overall we think this is good news for both victims and for those who meet their claims.”
(Source: Kings Chambers)
Nailing an interview is hard, but getting an interview in the first place is where it all starts. Shari F. Lesnick, is a Career and Professional Development Coordinator at Western Michigan University Cooley Law School where she focuses on career coaching and employer outreach. Here Shari talks to lawyer Monthly about the key stage of job hunting in the legal sphere, resume building and securing an interview.
In today’s hiring market there are multiple online websites where you can blast out your resume in the hope that somewhere someone happens to look and selects you for that coveted interview. While the “send and wait” approach might work for other professions, law students and newly admitted attorneys should follow a tailored approach. Below are four tips to get your resume out of an inbox and position you to secure an interview.
Be Selective. A few years ago a luxury men and women’s handbag company expanded their market and placed product not only in their stores but in department stores and outlet malls. Instead of seeing an increase of sales, the brand became diluted and sales dropped. So too will the value of your resume plummet if you embark on the “mass mailing” approach. The legal community is close knit; hiring partners talk to each other. You don’t want to be known in your community as the person who sent his/her resume to every firm in your county. Be selective and have focus. If you choose to cold call law firms, make sure your resume reflects that you are a good match for the firm. Narrow your first round of cold call submissions to 5-7 places.
Be Mindful of What the Employer Seeks. The luxury handbag manufacturer ultimately switched focus back to their original customers. They were mindful of what their core customers wanted. They closed many of their outlet mall stores and department store mini-shops. Every job seeker must read the job posting carefully and be mindful of the employer’s requirements. Do not apply to positions where you do not meet the employer’s basic qualification – your current status. A law school graduate in most cases should not apply to a position that seeks a first or second year law student. A law student should not apply to a position that seeks a newly admitted attorney. If you have been practicing for one year it would be a waste of your time and the employer’s time to apply to a position that requests 3-5 years of experience. Be mindful and pay attention to what the employer seeks in their job posting. The specific requirements indicate what the firm needs right now. Focus your time and energies on positions where you meet the basic requirements and submit a resume that is tailored for those employers.
Tailor Every Resume Submission. When the luxury handbag company mass manufactured their product people lost interest because what was being offered wasn’t unique any more. Everything was the same and nothing stood out. It is not advisable to submit a one size fits all resume. Take the time to study each prospective employer. Review the attorney biography section of the website. Analyze what types of people the firm hires. What do you have in common with the other attorneys? What similar law school experiences do you have with them? What prior work experience do you have that the firm could use? After you have carefully studied the prospective employer, first revise your resume to reflect all the similarities you have in common. Next, reflect on what unique specific skills you have that the prospective employer would value. Ask your friends, other attorneys, professors and career services advisors what they know about the firm. Seek their input on your final resume draft.
Be Patient. The luxury handbag company didn’t have an overnight turn around. While the new point of sale strategies were being launched, the company embarked upon multiple customer engagement efforts. They reached out to a redefined market base and networked on social media, print advertising, industry events, and through partnerships with “tastemakers”. While you are selectively submitting your tailored resumes don’t be passive. Attend networking events that are compatible to your strategic resume submissions. If you seek a career in family law it wouldn’t make sense to focus your networking efforts with the insurance defense bar section. While you are proceeding with your resume submission efforts, continue self-marketing and personally engage with individuals and organizations that are compatible with your job search focus. Be patient, your selective self-marketing could ultimately lead to a personal introduction to an employer to which you previously submitted your resume. Stay connected to the people who are connected to the firms with whom you want to interview.
By following these tips coupled with strategic networking, your resume will resonate with employers and position you to secure the interviews you seek.
From 25th May next year all UK businesses – big or small – will need to comply with strict new regulations around how they collect, store and use personal information as the European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) replaces the current data protection directive.
However, despite the GDPR’s two-year transition period which began in May 2016, A&O IT One Solution is concerned that many SMEs remain unaware of what changes they must legally put in place over the coming months if they are to avoid breaching the new data protection obligations.
The UK’s Information Commissioner has historically taken the approach that it wants to help Data Holders comply with the rules but GDPR brings about a change in culture to enforcement and ignorance or a lack of resources will no longer be considered an acceptable excuse.
With violations set to be met with heavy fines of up to 4 per cent of a company’s worldwide turnover and the changes coming in despite the UK’s decision to leave the EU, non-compliance could risk putting offending SMEs out of business.
To support SME’s, A&O IT One Solution have prepared a free guide designed to help ‘get you GDPR ready’ please email gdpr@aoitgroup.com for a copy.
Rod Moore, chairman of A&O IT Group, commented: “The implications of the new GDPR are massive for all organisations. Whilst some small business owners wrongly assume the new laws won’t apply to them, what’s even more worrying is how many remain totally unaware of the new regulations and how they will impact their day-to-day business.
“All business owners need to wake up to the fact that the new GDPR directive is a complete legal overhaul that will affect anyone who deals with personal data, whether they’re a one-man band or have multiple offices. If you hold personally identifiable information (PII) data on staff, contractors or customers you are legally obliged to ensure that its’ use is limited to activity expressly approved by the subject.
“Seeking IT advice at an early stage will not only avoid potentially business-devastating penalties but also improve customer relationships at a time when trust becomes the most valuable company asset of all.”
A&O IT One Solution clients can tap into the team’s specialists to better understand where they’re holding personal data, who can access it and which processes they must put in place to ensure their business is fully compliant. For some, this might involve introducing new systems to protect this information to the required level as well as updating privacy policies or even bringing on-board a data protection officer.
For others, the focus will be on introducing clear plans on how they will report data breaches within the GDPR’s required 72-hour limit and correctly handle any Subject Access Requests and ‘right to be forgotten’ applications.
Moore added: “As cybercrime becomes more sophisticated and SMEs are perceived as easier targets, the GDPR is a timely opportunity for companies to ensure they put the right processes and security systems in place to future-proof their business.”
“As cybercrime advances and develops year on year, companies must be properly prepared to deal with phishing attacks, Ransomware, Trojans, malware etc. All companies must ensure that their IT systems are fully secured against attacks. Does your business ensure that all persons with data access are issued with written guidance on internet policy and data usage? Is your software regularly updated? Is your anti-virus software up to date and regularly utilised? Have you undertaken a threat analysis and kept it updated. If not you are probably exposed.”
(Source: A&O IT)
Last week, the Paradise Papers leak made news headlines around the world, revealing that some of the world’s biggest businesses, heads of state and globally renown figures have been sheltering their wealth in offshore tax havens. Some of these are being investigated, and the general consensus is that the actions revealed are terrible and should be punished. However, what are the facts and how can we logically assess what has taken place? Here Chris Harte, CEO of independent law firm Morton Fraser, discusses with Lawyer Monthly the lessons we can currently take from this ordeal.
Tax avoidance is legal. There, I said it.
Tax evasion, on the other hand, most certainly isn’t. Indeed, our embattled Prime Minster wants to hold companies criminally liable if they fail to stop their employees from facilitating tax evasion.
The difference between evasion and avoidance neatly encapsulates the careful path trodden by businesses and their legal advisors on a daily basis.
The Paradise Papers, and the Panama Papers last year, have put that path under global scrutiny once more. The law never exists in a vacuum, which means even the simplest of questions can prompt the most complicated of answers. “Is it legal?” rarely returns a straightforward answer when it comes to tax affairs.
The ripple effects of the Paradise Papers are being felt on these shores, and not just in the corridors of law firms and prosecutors.
The impact has, for example, increased debate in Scotland about Scottish Limited Partnerships (SLPs), which are themselves exempt from tax as legal entities. Despite SLPs being around for a century, the Panama Papers have prompted questions about whether they make Scotland an offshore haven of its own, in the same guise as Panama itself.
The question has to be asked: is there anything wrong with that? Companies and other legal vehicles created for a special purpose are common everywhere – there’s nothing inherently, legally or morally wrong about that. Plenty of companies will reap the rewards of such structures.
If reassurance were needed, anti-money laundering rules require law firms to verify the identity of our clients, including, where such a corporate structure is being used, the identity of the beneficial owners sitting behind that structure.
The nub of the debate is transparency. Being open about one’s financial structures is a rare thing in business, particularly amongst privately owned businesses, which constitute such a large portion of our economy. That very requirement to reassure others has not hitherto been needed, but is now a consideration.
That said, it is important not to demonise perfectly legitimate models of business by dint of a particularly broad brush with which to paint special purpose vehicles. The Paradise Papers have again sharpened everybody’s focus on the difference.
What has long been an established balancing act between pragmatic commercial judgement and a legalistic examination of a business decision has become much more black-and-white, and rightly so. There should be little room for debate about what is illegal, or immoral, even if the law itself does not always offer the clarity required to make a clear-cut judgement.
It is in these legal cul-de-sacs that legal liability meets reputational risk, and it is often down to lawyers to offer their clients a legal roadmap out.
After all, this is a business matter, not a political one, even if party leaders have started publishing their tax returns.
Furthermore, business owners who are closely following the Paradise Papers fallout will no doubt recognise the international response required to actually crack down on malpractice. No single country has the tools available to really make a difference.
The truth is that anyone willing to break the law can and will manipulate the systems of finance available to them internationally. The world has never been smaller in that respect. Regulation won’t change this.
However, if the Paradise Papers achieve anything, it might be to help us better define where the acceptable boundary lies between avoidance and evasion of tax.
While legal professionals say directories are genuinely useful a report released by MD Communications shows more than half of law firms believe they don't get the rankings they deserve and 84% are frustrated with the time it takes to make a submission.
Firms spend a great deal of time and effort on legal directories, with some submitting over 1,000 entries annually, though less than a third say they are satisfied with the contact they have with directory researchers.
But despite these sentiments, the message is clear - directories are here to stay, they're generally well used and are really important for winning business and standing out in a competitive market.
In fact, 81% of law firms say they use their rankings in Chambers & Partners and The Legal 500 when making pitches for work.
And six out of 10 in-house general counsel say they consult legal directories before appointing a law firm.
The results reflect the views of global law firms, corporate counsel and business development professionals published in a white paper called 'Legal Directories: Are they still relevant?', by legal communications specialists MD Communications.
The research, released at this year’s International Bar Association conference in Sydney today (Wednesday, 11th October, 2017), indicates directories really come into their own and display their usefulness in the international legal market.
Four in 10 law firms say their rankings have led to international work and 54% say potential clients mention their directory rankings.
In addition, 63% of law firms believe directories still matter in the legal world while more than six out of 10 think they will last more than five years.
Among general counsel, 93% say they consult The Legal 500, 86% Chambers & Partners, 36% Who's Who Legal, and 14% the International Financial Law Review.
Even though they are seen as important, those compiling legal directories say some law firms fail to gain the rankings they deserve as the firms often leave inexperienced members of staff in charge of submissions. This, they add, is in contrast to the resources they may have dedicated to the process.
MD Communications managing director Melissa Davis said: "The directories are here to stay, and they are used. While this research uncovered some dissatisfaction with the directories, importantly the main directories are shown to be generally useful.
"They are a rich source of information and allow firms to stand out in a market that remains complex, diverse and fiercely competitive.
"Our white paper shows the industry genuinely believes legal directories will remain very relevant for some time and therefore it is important that law firms think strategically about them as a key part of their communications strategy."
(Source: MD Communications)
Following several public allegations against US Actor Kevin Spacey, the public is in uproar about sexual assault being swept under the carpet, about celebrity reactions to accusations, about the lack of public support for victims, but also about the press’s forceful reporting of allegations as if proven fact.
When this happened to Weinstein, things went south very quickly. From a legal perspective, what are the rules surrounding sexual assault accusations? How should the media behave? How should the accused behave? Are fair trials heavily affected by the media?
Rob Conway, Director of Criminal Defence at Vardags, comments for Lawyer Monthly:
“The main rule governing the reporting of sexual assault allegations is the lifetime anonymity provided to victims under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992. Anonymity applies from the moment the allegation is made and covers any reporting of subsequent court proceedings. It would be a criminal offence for any member of the media to breach anonymity even indirectly, for example, where the naming of others in the case would itself be likely to identify the victim.
“There is no such law in regard to the accused; however, police should not disclose the identity of the accused before he or she is charged with an offence unless it is deemed a necessary and proportionate step in the police investigation.
“The media must take special care to avoid inaccurate or misleading reporting or risk falling foul of the Contempt Laws. It is a contempt of court to publish anything which creates substantial risk that the course of justice will be seriously impeded or prejudiced. This would apply equally to online media reporting and to individual users of social media, and would apply from the moment that proceedings are “active”, which would be the point of initial arrest. Unfortunately, whilst the contempt laws are significant deterrence they are not preventative and adverse pre-trial reporting continues and especially in terms of online coverage.
“In terms of behaviour of the accused, they would need to be very careful in how they choose to respond and should seek legal advice before doing so. There is always a danger that what they say might be misconstrued or misinterpreted especially so when it is addressed to a media on the hunt for an attention-grabbing story.
Many wonder if trials are influenced by the media and if so, to what extent? There are extensive rules developed around ensuring a jury hear relevant and probative evidence as opposed to information that would be merely prejudicial and may affect the fairness of the proceedings. Additionally, jurors are directed in the strongest of terms to focus solely on the evidence they hear within the court room and to discard any other information from their deliberations. It is very difficult to know how and to what extent the influence of the media can penetrate these protections.”
The number of new job openings for executive managers within the legal profession increased by 54.8% in the year to 31st August 2017, according to the Association of Professional Staffing Companies (APSCo). This is despite the fact that overall vacancies within the sector rose by just 1.8% during the same period. Demand for practicing lawyers, meanwhile, dipped by 4.4%.
While new openings for lawyers specialising in family law increased by 27.9%, demand for personal injury lawyers, corporate specialists and real estate lawyers all decreased (by 14.1%, 13.5% and 9% respectively).
Elsewhere, demand for marketers and PR professionals to work within the sector increased by 18.8% while new openings for HR professionals rose by 23.6%.
Geographically, jobs growth was strongest in the North East of England where legal vacancies were up 36.4% during the 12 months to August 2017. There was also solid growth across the North West and South East, where vacancies rose by 13.9% and 13.1% respectively. Overall legal vacancies in Greater London dipped by 2.4% over the same period.
Ann Swain, chief executive of APSCo, commented on the report saying: “The legal sector continues to show positive signs of strength, but as these figures demonstrate, organisational structures within the profession are shifting, and this is having a notable impact on demand for talent.”
“The advent of external investment and ownership which came with the introduction of alternative business structures in 2012 marked the start of a new wave of commercial awareness within the sector which continues to evolve. Today, this is evident in a boom in demand for managers, marketing professionals and HR leaders as firms focus on expansion through smart business structuring and astute business development strategies.”
“The fact that jobs growth is also increasing rapidly outside of the capital is also indicative of this shifting tide. Aside from the fact that an increasing number of businesses are ‘north-shoring’ operations, technological advancements also mean that law firms no longer have to be on the doorstep of their client base. This has spurred an increase in practices which set up shop where overheads are cheaper so that they can offer competitive rates to clients with which they communicate with virtually. This model relies on volume, slick systems and processes, and business acumen, which is reflected in the roles our members are placing.”
(Source: APSCo + Vacancysoft)
