Bermuda has affirmed its record in terms of transparency and international compliance, ahead of EU talks this week. The Bermuda delegation will be led by the Premier, The Rt Hon E. David Burt, JP, MP.

In a statement, the Premier said: “This week I have a series of meetings in London, Paris and Brussels. Bermuda has a recognized leadership position in transparency and compliance, and ranks ahead of many leading developed economies in international indices and reports.”

There is already an automatic exchange of information due to the adoption of the ‘Common Reporting Standard’ as a benchmark for tax transparency and with country by country reporting that provides the EU Member States with the information they need to police corporate tax compliance.

Bermuda’s commitment to the BEPS (Base Erosion and Profit-Shifting) Inclusive Framework which obliges the island to enforce BEPS minimum standards and to support the OECD BEPS Multilateral Instrument. Bermuda has been ranked ‘largely compliant’ by the OECD with respect to TIEAs.

The Premier stated that “Bermuda has significant substance in its financial services sector and is committed to dialogue with EU on any points of concern in the design and operation of its financial centre.

“Bermuda has always raised revenue mainly from indirect taxes and has never had corporate taxation. There is, accordingly, no basis for thinking that Bermuda’s tax system design is “aimed at” attracting business from others.”

(Source: Government of Bermuda)

Mark Gardner is a debt recovery and insolvency specialist at national law firm Excello Law, and here he explains for Lawyer Monthly why the recently introduced pre-action debt protocol might have gone a little too far.

The government introduced a new pre-action protocol for debt on 1^st October 2017. This new protocol, from the Head of Civil Justice, will have extensive implications for businesses that deal with individual debtors, such as in business to consumer or business to business environments where the customer is an individual.

The protocol was introduced with legitimate and worthy aims. It is designed to encourage mutual exchange of information and a dialogue, resolving differences without court intervention.

The protocol has very precise requirements. Gone will be the 2-page letter of claim setting out the sums due and the 7 or 14-day period (or less with some firms who undertake recovery). This will transform the document into something of around 10 pages in length and gives a period of at least 30 days for a response. That will have cash flow implications for businesses that are basically unable to pursue the debt during this period.

The letter should be posted on the day it was written or, if not reasonably possible, the following day. If the debtor does not reply to the letter of claim within 30 days of the date on the top of it then court proceedings can begin provided that the debtor has been given 14 days’ notice of the intention to commence proceedings.

Worryingly for creditors, there is the potential for a savvy debtor to drag this out and then argue failure to comply in front of the court. This can be done by requesting copy documents, stopping the creditor starting court proceedings for at least 30 days from receipt of the completed Reply form or 30 days from the creditor providing documents requested by the debtor, whichever is later.

Parties should consider the use of alternative dispute resolution. If a settlement is reached and then breached, the whole process recommences with the time limits. Following the implementation of the protocol, we may see numerous cases being fought on technical breaches of the protocol simply to avoid paying interest, court and other costs by some debtors.

Additionally, those who could not handle the strain of being in debt may bury their head further in the sand due to being overwhelmed by it all. A 10-page bundle will simply phase them, rather than aid dialogue.

Furthermore, some debtors will play the system – by replying at day 30, requesting documents, relying on 30 days to consider them, saying they are going to get legal advice, claiming they cannot get it and then seeking to enter into a dialogue to reach an agreement to pay a nominal sum, defaulting and saying they are trying to get additional advice, and then simply going to ground.

I do think that the pendulum has swung too far. Despite good intentions, the protocol will catch legitimate businesses who are trying to survive and secure the business and jobs for their staff. Sadly, these are the businesses who will have given credit to individuals and are themselves most vulnerable to market pressures and failure to pay.

Continuing to trade will become more difficult for individual sole trader businesses. Not only will they be squeezed if they trade with individuals like themselves, they might be unable to get credit from their suppliers. Big business may not wish to trade with them on credit for the aforementioned reasons.

Money up front or on delivery materializes as the way forward until this all levels out and the requirements relax. If credit is to be given parties should follow the golden rule of getting a credit application form and proof of business entity documentation. Additionally, know who you are dealing with from the off, and monitor any payments or letterheads that are coming in.

Following the Las Vegas shootings, where 58 people died, much discussion has riled up surrounding US President Donald Trump’s reaction to the massacre, and largely about weapons regulations and restrictions.

The man behind the attack, Stephen Paddock, shot and injured a security guard just minutes before the attack. A full timeline of the tragedy can be found here.

Lawyer Monthly has below heard the opinions and thoughts of several US experts, in the legal and security sphere, on current gun regulation in the US, and the prospect of further limitations.

Robert J. McWhirter, Principal, The Law Offices of Robert J. McWhirter:

Now was not the time,” is Donald Trump's response regarding new gun laws after the largest mass shootings in American history; anemic, to say the least.

As a constitutional historian I believe an individual right to bear arms exists.  At the time of the founding you could buy any gun at any time, even a cannon if you could afford it.  But just as old is gun control.  Regulations on the use and storage of firearms and gunpowder existed throughout the colonies.  And, the region with the greatest tradition of gun control was the deep south, which banned all black people from bearing arms.

In reality, nearly everyone believes in some gun control.  We don’t seriously argue, for instance, that felons convicted of violent crimes should have guns or that anyone today can buy an Abrams Tank.

So, as we face the latest carnage we should keep in mind not only is the right to bear arms an individual Constitutional right, but like all rights we only exercise it in the context of government, the first function of which is to protect our individual security and lives.

Now most certainly is the time to talk about it.

Jeffrey Swartz, Criminal Law Professor, WMU-Cooley Law School:

For 83 years there has been a strict ban on the ownership of fully automatic weapons by American civilians.  However it was still legal to own semi-automatic versions of military weaponry.

In 1994 the Congress saw, as matter of national security, to outlaw the sale of assault rifles, because the they saw no purpose in civilians owning weapons with the singular purpose of killing other civilians and their design made it possible to too easily convert these weapons to fully automatic operation.  Although the statute was never challenged under the Second Amendment, other Constitutional challenges were raised, and defeated before the Supreme Court.

That law expired in 2004, and since the sale of the assault rifles has rapidly accelerated.   Thousands of kits to convert assault rifles to fully automatic operation have been legally sold at gun shows.

The 2nd amendment, as interpreted by SCOTUS, grants to individuals the right to bear arms (guns), but the right of the government to place reasonable restrictions on the types of weapons, how they operate and limitations on restrictions of the type of ammunition, or the extent of the firepower of those weapons, have been clearly approved.

Brendan Beery, Constitutional Law Professor, WMU-Cooley Law School:

Donald Trump has sworn fealty to constitutional originalism. But the Second Amendment might be originalism’s doom.

Rigid originalism would yield no more than a right to possess a single-shot, ram-action musket. Since the framers of the Constitution could not have meant to rule from the grave this way (most conservatives would agree, thereby betraying originalism straight away), we seek a more malleable application of the right to bear arms.

Some originalists say that the historical purpose underlying the Second Amendment – to enable state militias to resist federal overreach – requires that common citizens (would-be militiamen) may possess whatever armaments might be needed to resist the national government by force.

This reading is dubious. First, it would today require that individuals be allowed to possess explosive power that can be measured in megatons – an absurdity the framers could not have foreseen given their primitive technologies. Second, the notion of state rebellion against federal authority was put to a deadly test – and extinguished forever – by the Civil War.

So we must drag the Second Amendment into this century; a citizen may only possess the kinds of “well-regulated” armaments that might reasonably be used by a peaceable civilian for lawful purposes in modern society.

Joshua Ritter, Criminal Defense Attorney in Los Angeles:

This country needs gun regulation reform.  Problems such as the “Gun Show Loophole” that permit straw-man purchases are unacceptable and without reasonable counter-argument.  But we make a crucial error when we believe that banning certain types of guns or creating stricter regulations to purchase guns will do anything to address gun violence.

Last year there were approximately 15,000 gun related deaths.  Of those, roughly 75 were caused by a “mass shooter.” This number includes the 49 victims of the Pulse Nightclub massacre in Orlando.  Shootings involving an individual indiscriminately killing people made up less than half of 1% of gun homicides in 2016.

Anti-gun lawmakers insist that regulation must address issues such as stricter background checks, high-capacity magazines, banning assault style rifles, and prohibiting silencers. This type of legislation would primarily affect law-abiding gun owners.  It ignores the data that the vast majority of gun violence is perpetrated by individuals with criminal records, in many cases gang ties, and who are in illegal possession of the gun used in the crime.

Despite the overwhelming data that most gun crimes are committed by career criminals, California lawmakers are on the retreat when it comes to laws designed to combat gun crime. Right now a bill sits on Governor Brown’s desk that eliminates mandatory penalties for criminals who use a gun in the most heinous types of crimes, including rape, mayhem, and murder.

California has some of the strictest prohibitions to purchasing a firearm. Yet, when a person is arrested for felon in possession of a firearm, prosecutors routinely settle the case for probation. California is the land of plenty when it comes to gun restrictions, but it is the land of opportunity when it comes to avoiding penalties.

If we want to have a significant impact on the epidemic of gun violence in this country then we must be willing to address the problem at its core.  Further legislation targeted at already law-abiding individuals is pointless.  Strong legislation aimed at those who have already demonstrated a willingness to illegally possess and use guns will have a demonstrable impact.

Steve Dulan, Michigan Attorney and Firearms Law Professor, WMU-Cooley Law School:

I am a former US Army Infantry Sergeant. Among other duties, I spent time as a machine gunner, and was a certified armorer. Later, I was a civilian volunteer trainer of Squad Designated Marksmen in pre-deployment units. At this point, I am an attorney and adjunct professor. Among the courses I teach at WMU-Cooley Law School is “Gun Control Seminar.”

In our seminar, we break gun control into three main categories: People, Places, and Things. We must spend class time getting everyone up to speed on types of guns in order discuss some of the specifics of hardware regulation, “technical” violations of which can be felonious. In class, I emphasize the fact that gun control law is complex and ever-changing. I caution students that this area of law is never well-settled.

Virtually all modern gun control laws are based either in racism, or as a legislative response to tragedy. This tragedy is no different. Gun control proposals were already being made during the immediate aftermath. Some of them were calls to regulate people: “Crazy people shouldn’t be allowed to have guns.” This area of regulation presents several challenges. First, research shows that individuals with diagnosed mental illness are LESS violent than the general population. Second, many potentially violent, mentally ill people are not diagnosed, or are simply not included in the prohibited persons database used by NICS (National Instant Criminal Background Check System), the system that is used when anyone purchases a firearm from an FFL (Federal Firearm License) dealer. Apparently, the Las Vegas shooter was not a prohibited person.

Some of the calls were to regulate places: “He shouldn’t have been allowed to have guns in the hotel.” Apparently, the hotel prohibits firearms on their premises. However, like most nominal “gun free zones,” there were no magnetometers, or other means of enforcing the policy.

The most concrete legislative proposals are about regulating things: “We should outlaw bump-fire stocks.” Bump fire stocks are like machine guns in that they sacrifice accuracy for rate of fire. The Las Vegas shooter was able to do so much harm only because of the tightly-packed crowd. A simple YouTube search reveals that bump firing a semi-automatic rifle does not require a special aftermarket stock.

In short, none of the recently proposed regulations would appear to have had any impact on the Las Vegas tragedy.

Matt C. Pinsker, Attorney at Law, Pinsker Law:

With the exception of the US and Canada, every Democratic nation in the Americas has at some point in its history fallen into tyranny, as have many elsewhere throughout the world such as the Roman Republic all the way through more modern examples of western nations including Germany and France.

Distrustful of human nature, the Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment so that should the US Government become tyrannical some point down the line, the people would have the means to resist and protect themselves, and even overthrow the government.

Today, the irony is that the very people who are calling President Trump a tyrant, dictator, and fascist are the same people trying to take away the gun rights of Americans.

We would also love to hear more of Your Thoughts on this, so feel free to comment below and tell us what you think!

Over the weekend, big time gun lobbyists, the National Rifle Association said they would oppose an outright bump-stock ban. A bump-stock is a device that enables rifles automatic firing, such as we saw in the recent Las Vegas massacre, where 58 people died.

According to police, Stephen Paddock, 64, fitted 12 of his weapons with bum stocks, turning semi-auto rifles to automatic fire guns, which in themselves are against the law in the US.

Last week the NRA voiced a willingness to support restrictions on bump stocks, but when faced with the prospect of an outright ban, said it would turn to oppose legislation banning the devices.

“We don’t believe that bans have ever worked on anything. What we have said has been very clear — that if something transfers a semiautomatic to function like a fully automatic, then it ought to be regulated differently,” Chris Cox, the NRA’s chief lobbyist, stated on Fox News Sunday.

“This is the first time that the gun lobby has shown willingness to come to the table and I think that’s in part because Americans just simply do not accept mass shooting after mass shooting happening and Congress doing absolutely nothing,” CNN heard from Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy “State of the Union.”

New research has revealed that the Court of Protection is now hearing in excess of 4,000 cases each year - more than 20 times what was originally anticipated when the Court was set up in 2007 - which is causing delays of up to nine months for care decisions.

Annabelle Vaughan, Partner and Head of the Vulnerable People and Court of Protection team at law firm Coffin Mew had this to say for Lawyer Monthly: “The Court of Protection is subject to long delays, primarily due to its workload. Since its inception, case law has radically altered the scope of the Court’s work and increased the amount of cases that need to go to Court. There is also better awareness amongst professionals working with vulnerable adults that they cannot run roughshod over their rights. This is a positive development but this, combined with an ageing population, inevitably means that more cases are going to Court.
 
“Unfortunately, it is not always the case that an organisation that has faced a costly Court battle learns its lessons and improves its practices. Improvements in the care settings and the public sector would improve matters but, as ever, this would put more demand on already stretched resources. 
 
“Whilst there are some decisions that have to be made by the Court, in most cases parties should try and work together to mitigate problems and resolve points of dispute. Individuals should not be deterred from pursing their rights and should seek advice regarding funding of their cases and in certain circumstances whether damages may be due to them.”

Expert journalist Dominic Carman here provides Lawyer Monthly with an overview of the “false picture” he claims is being portrayed in regard to the country’s battle against serious fraud, shedding light on the true scale of the UK’s fraud problem, and touches on the increasing and ongoing uncertainty surrounding the SFO’s future.

The Serious Fraud Office has had a good year, or so its advocates would suggest. In 2017, two deferred prosecution agreements made by the SFO with Rolls-Royce (£479.25m) and Tesco (£129m) delivered more than £600m in fines for the UK Treasury. The fact that no-one has yet gone to prison for the crimes committed by these companies, who both admitted their guilt, seems to have passed with little comment.

But the wealth of media coverage created by these two prominent prosecutions of high profile companies presents an entirely false picture of the UK’s wider battle against fraud. The simple truth is that there is more fraud and there are fewer convictions than in 2011, the year before David Green took over as SFO director. Data illustrating the full extent of the problem emerged over the summer as a result of much good work by the law firm, Pinsent Masons (Pinsents), which has done a public service in making the details available.

So what is the scale of fraud in Britain today? As a result of a Freedom of Information (FOI) request made by Pinsents, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) provided figures which showed a fall in 2016 in the number of white-collar crimes prosecuted in England and Wales. In the same year, there was a sharp spike in the number of white-collar crimes reported.

The MoJ data for 2016 showed that there were 8,304 prosecutions brought, down from 9,489 in the previous year – a decline of 12.5%. These prosecutions comprise offences including: bribery, corruption, fraud, computer fraud, false accounting and insider dealing. This decline is not a one-off, but part of a sustained trend with a decline every year since 2011 when the figure was 11,200. That means an overall decline of 26% in prosecutions over five years.

On the other side of the coin, there has been an even more shocking increase in the number of crimes reported to the police relating to fraud. The figures for 2016 show that there were 641,539 reports - up from 617,112 in 2015 and a massive jump from the 2011 figure of just 142,911 in 2011. An extraordinary jump of 350% in five years. This is in line with comparable figures for 2016 produced by the Crime Survey of England and Wales.

According to a recent National Audit Office report, fraud cost private sector businesses an estimated £144 billion last year and individuals £10bn. Combined, these figures put the £600m fines levied on Tesco and Rolls-Royce into perspective since they are more than 250 times that sum. They also raise doubts over the true efficacy of the SFO to investigate and prosecute white collar criminals.

While it is fair to say that the SFO only investigates serious fraud, bribery and corruption, it would also be fair to assume that this has increased along broadly the same trajectory as more general fraud. We do not know the detail because government data does not breakdown reported or prosecuted fraud figures by value.

One thing we do know for certain, and upon which all commentators are agreed - uncertainty over the SFO needs to end. The constant speculation about its fate has a long and turbulent history: the SFO’s future has been in doubt as far back as 2011, when Theresa May (then Home Secretary) first mooted its abolition. Under her watch as Prime Minister, disbanding the SFO was firmly promised in the 2017 Conservative Election manifesto.

But since the election, there has been no government statement about the agency, simply an uneasy stalemate with May on one side and the SFO’s cheerleaders on the other. As someone who prominently supports the SFO in his newspaper, the former Chancellor and now London Evening Standard editor George Osborne has reportedly said that he will not rest until Theresa May is “is chopped up in bags in my freezer.”

None of which does anything at all to serve the interests of justice. Fraudsters, especially serious ones, must be rubbing their hands with glee since most of them, according to government statistics stand very little chance of either being detected or prosecuted for their crimes. Plotted on a graph, a year-on-year pattern of dramatically increasing fraud figures and ever-dwindling prosecutions would point to only one conclusion: as a country, we do not take fraud anywhere seriously enough.

Police recovered two rifles outfitted with bump-stocks in the Las Vegas hotel room from which a gunman carried out the deadliest mass shooting in modern US history, the Associated Press reports. A bump fire stock is a device that harnesses the recoil of a semiautomatic firearm to fire several shots in succession, mimicking automatic gunfire.

In 2015, The Trace’s Alex Yablon broke down the devices’ functionality.Yablon focused on a specific model, the Bump Fire Stock, which at the time sold for about $100. Another popular maker of the devices goes by the brand name Slide Fire. The Bump Fire stock doesn’t convert semiautomatic rifles to true automatic fire. Rather, it provides an effective means of engaging a gun’s trigger extremely quickly. Instead of pulling back the trigger to fire, the user places his or her finger slightly in front of the trigger and pushes the whole gun forward with steady pressure.

The trigger hits the finger and the round goes off.Recoil pushes the gun back, but the shooter’s forward pressure immediately returns the trigger back to the finger, and so the gun fires off another round faster than the blink of an eye. Fully automatic weapons are strictly regulated under federal law, and have been out of production in the United States since 1986. But the federal government has green lit bump fire stocks for lawful sales.Bump Fire System’s website includes a letter of approval from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, which examined the product before it entered the market in 2012. The devices, as Yablon writes, are just this side of legal.

Lawmakers have attempted to crack down on devices designed to increase a semiautomatic gun’s rate of fire. In 2013, after a gunman murdered 20 children and six educators at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, Senator Dianne Feinstein of California proposed a law that would have banned bump-fire stocks and similar devices. The legislation did not get a vote.

As part of A&O’s 2017 Annual Review, ‘Leading in Uncertain Times’, its ‘Perspectives on Brexit’ report considers some of the key questions for Allen & Overy and its clients regarding a UK exit from the EU.

The A&O website reads: “With the negotiations gaining momentum, we have focused this report on three main issues: the future of EU/UK trade, the role of the European Court of Justice and the English courts after Brexit, and the effect of Brexit on the development of global legal systems.”

The report also features expert independent political commentary on the negotiations from Charles Grant of the Centre for European Reform and insights from our Senior Partner, Wim Dejonghe.

Click here to read the full report.

(Source: Allen & Overy)

Online gaming, online gambling and eSports are increasingly present across the UK, as well as across the rest of the world. This this creates ample space for illicit activity, betting and cheating. So what are the rules in today’s modern day? Andrew Tait, Partner at Gordon Dadds, has some answers.

What is eSports and Skill Based Gaming?

eSports is competitive video gaming between 2 or more persons, a fast growing phenomenon mainly in the Millennium Generation. Whilst the percentage of eSports players compared to traditional gambling is relatively small, it may well increase in the future as our younger generation are rapidly turning to eSports as a preferred form of entertainment.

Operators breaking into this new market are already looking at ways to commercialise it by adopting very different strategies which will largely depend on whether the activity is considered unregulated gaming or regulated gambling as can be seen below.

eSports may in fact fall within the larger Skills Based Gaming category, which covers a myriad of skill games such as: chess; crosswords; quizzes; spot the ball; skilled slot machines and many other new innovative products. These all share the common feature that the extent of skill over chance is key in establishing how they will be treated from a regulatory aspect, having major knock-on ramifications for both consumers and operators.

The UK vs Other Jurisdictions

A game of chance to win a prize in the UK is subject to regulation (and with it compliance, fees and taxes) under the 2005 Gambling Act, where this definition includes skilled games with a small element of chance unless so insignificant as to not matter. Similarly a competition to win a prize requiring an entry fee to participate will also be subject to regulation unless the skill requirement is so high as to prevent a significant proportion of persons from winning a prize or deterring them from participating in the first place.

This is very different from the approach used in many other jurisdictions, such as the USA which relies on a predominance test, where a dominant element of skill over chance takes it outside the definition of gambling and all the regulatory consequences of that (including prohibition if there’s no regulation)

eSports involving games such as Call of Duty or Counter-Strike are highly skilful games, something even acknowledged by the Gambling Commission in its position paper on this topic. However games which introduce randomly generated elements, (through use of a random number generator) may lead to the game having more than an insignificant level of chance.

eSports which mange to pass this skills hurdle may still be subject to regulation if there is facilitation for participants or the audience to bet on the outcome.

Therefore the UK has a strict approach, when compared with other gambling jurisdictions such as the Isle of Man and Malta, which are both moving towards a tiered regulatory approach with regards to games of chance, skill games and hybrids of both.

What it means for UK Consumers

eSports and skilled games which fall outside the regulatory framework, will by doing so rob  players of the consumer based protections mandated in the regulations such as: game integrity to prevent cheating, controls against compulsive playing (‘problem gambling’) and protection of minors.

Normally operators coming under the regulatory umbrella would be subject to technical and operating standards that would ensure these protections are built into the gambling products and services. Without these, players are dependent on providers adhering to responsible levels of behaviour. To be fair many of the providers in this space have voluntarily joined associations such as eSports Integrity Coalition (ESIC) to maintain standards. Three months ago ESIC handed out a two year ban to a player caught cheating in a Counter-Strike tournament.

Unregulated eSports is becoming more commercialised with the prevalence of purchased in-game items (’Skins’). This creates a particular issue for children who may inadvertently gone on a buying spree of ‘skins’, especially as many games are specifically targeted at them. The lack of protection in this area is particularly worrying, especially to the many parents who get a nasty shock when they look at their credit card bills.

There is however a growing base of professional eSports players who not only earn prize money but also sponsorship fees. Also now that it is an official Olympics event, we will no doubt see this increase in the lead up to the Tokyo Games in 2020.

What it means for the Operators

eSports and skilled game operators generally depend on player liquidity across multiple jurisdictions. The patchwork of international regulation or its absence therefore makes the design of a viable product which for instance, fits in with the US’s predominance test and the UK’s virtual exclusion of chance, problematic to say the least. This will inevitably lead to silos of players and eSports products tuned to compatible jurisdictions.

EU based operators also need to be wary of the VAT that may be chargeable under eService provisions on revenues generated from the games on a point of consumption basis. Regulated gambling operators on the other hand are exempt from this in most EU jurisdictions (including the UK).

Another downside of maintaining their unregulated status is the need to ensure that facilities for gambling are not provided or facilitated. Operators who have tried to commercialise their offering by enabling access to other sites which allow betting on the outcome of the games with Skins or other forms of virtual currency, face the real danger of enforcement action, as occurred in the FutGalaxy case.

However some eSports providers such as Unikrn have gone down the regulatory route, teaming up with traditional sports betting operators to bring greater commercial value.

Gaming & Gambling Convergence: The Future?

Currently only about 8.5% of UK adults bet on eSports but given the US market where eSports, skilled games and fantasy sports are some of the few online gaming sectors where it is possible to participate across a growing number of States, we will no doubt see more convergence between gaming and gambling. Furthermore with the explosion in new block chain technologies and a multitude of crypto currencies, we are already starting on new era of gambling.

How does one use their law degree to pursue the career they want? How does a newly qualified lawyer aim for the executive leadership side of business? How do they begin their degree with this in mind? Kenneth Cutshaw, President & CEO of GCG, here discusses with Lawyer Monthly how to get from a law degree to the top.

Attending law school requires a certain amount of decisiveness. More often than not, the decision to earn a law degree is the result of careful consideration about one’s future, but that does not necessarily mean a definitive career path awaits law school graduates. In fact, with endless options for the application of a legal education, quite the opposite can be true.

A law degree can lay the groundwork for a successful career across myriad industries and functions, including business leadership at the executive level. This is especially true if you know how to leverage your education and make smart career decisions that maximize your value to current and prospective employers.

It is important to recognize that your career may unfold much differently than you anticipate. What fulfills you from a career perspective today may come up short in decades to come, so careful planning and preparation for whatever lies ahead is critical. Above all, at the outset of your career, be open to the opportunities that may arise.

To achieve this level of preparedness, start by diversifying your knowledge base by enrolling in business, economics and leadership courses during your time in school. All organizations – regardless of industry – will require executive leaders who are adept in the financial and economic sides of the business. When those skills merge with a legal background, the value proposition for the company increases many times over.

Recent law school graduates should be open to – and seek out – continuing education in areas of study beyond the law; most organizations will offer ongoing learning and development tools to employees. Taking advantage of these opportunities will afford numerous benefits, including setting you apart from your peers and securing your involvement in strategic decision-making functions within your current and future roles and fields of practice.

Even if you are certain of future aspirations of executive leadership, consider pursuing some form of traditional legal practice, which affords young professionals an array of tangible, transferable skills. Practicing law forces individuals to become critical thinkers, strategic communicators, to see business issues from multiple perspectives, and to develop and employ successful collaboration techniques – all critical characteristics of successful executives. Further, the confidence and credibility that result from time spent in legal practice cannot be understated.

Perhaps the most important resource for a young lawyer whose objective is executive leadership is a lasting relationship with a trusted mentor who will take a vested and long-term interest in your personal and professional development. Even the most successful business leaders rely on the counsel of their mentors, whose guidance can be instrumental when career objectives are unclear or new opportunities arise.

Great mentors do not arise out of thin air; it is the responsibility of the young professional to seek out and foster relationships with potential mentors. Start by asking someone whom you respect, who has diverse experience and a record of success. Be forthcoming about your request and what you hope to gain from the connection, and take measures to ensure the relationship is mutually beneficial. You will only get out of it what you put in, so the more time and resources you invest, the more you will gain.

Finally, nothing will solidify a young lawyer’s candidacy for growth into executive leadership roles more than his or her commitment to delivering results. Whether in a legal or business setting, young professionals should have a singular workplace objective: impressing their clients, colleagues and supervisors. Recent law school graduates should actively seek out tasks that leverage their educational background, even if outside the purview of their day-to-day scope of work. Doing so will earn them the trust and respect of their company’s stakeholders and position them as front-runners for future growth, both within and among the organizations they serve.

Law school graduates, by virtue of their education, are uniquely positioned to contribute at the highest level to any business enterprise in which they are engaged. Taking these steps will help law students and recent graduates prepare for a lifetime of career growth, whether inside the courtroom or inside the boardroom.

Kenneth Cutshaw is the president and CEO of GCG, a leading global provider of legal administration and business process outsourcing solutions. Mr. Cutshaw previously served as president, chief development officer, and chief legal officer for a global restaurant chain; partner at a US -based law firm focusing on international transactions; senior executive with the U. Government; and cofounder of the post-Soviet private university Georgian American University in the Country of Georgia, where he served as its first Dean of Law and Provost.