Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
You may have just started your new law job at a criminal law firm, or made the long-awaited transfer to the career path of your dreams, in criminal defence. Your first case is coming up and you need some expert advice. Robert Conway, Director, Criminal Defence lawyer at Vardags has a mass of experience and below talks Lawyer Monthly through 5 major considerations to make before jumping into your first criminal law case.
My first criminal case was held in a courtroom that no longer exists. The judge who oversaw that case has also long since retired, and I can barely recall the issues in the case, although I do remember my client receiving a stern warning from the judge that if he didn’t stop talking he would be sent to the cells. I’m not sure what I could have done to prevent that, especially since I had repeatedly warned my client to keep quiet. When it comes to criminal trials the first lesson is, therefore, to expect the unexpected and accept the fact that unforeseen issues are bound to arise.
I also vividly remember my closing speech. Not the content so much as the way in which it was received. In my eagerness to include every possible argument, I ended up flailing without landing one single punch.
To some extent, advocacy is a skill that comes with practice, and, in fairness to me, this was my first trial. Looking back, the real reason why I failed to grab the judge’s attention at this crucial moment was because I lacked clarity, not just in terms of my delivery but in my preparation overall. This may sound a trite piece of advice, but success in a criminal trial is not so much to do with rhetorical flair or Hollywood style revelations, than well-focussed, thorough and detailed preparation. Whilst I may lack much in the way of Perry Mason style anecdotes, I can at least share my own experience and provide some tips to assist in your own preparation.
The temptation on being handed your first case is to dive straight into the evidence to find out what the main complainant says or perhaps what the crucial piece of CCTV footage reveals. In your eagerness to do this, there is a danger you might overlook the charge sheet. It is this vital document that sets out the offence that your client has allegedly committed. In considering the offence and the statutory provision set out in the charge, you train your mind on the elements in the case that the crown has to prove from the outset. This is the central organising principle which will steer the whole course of your preparation.
When you have understood what it is the crown has to prove, you can go on to critically assess the strengths and weaknesses of every single item of evidence. You can identify the main problem areas for your client in the case, and also whether there are any potential gaps in the evidence or at least weaknesses that can be exploited. The charge sheet, and, in particular, the information underpinning it, becomes your compass. Taking the time to consider this at the start of your preparation can mean the difference between confusion and landing some well-placed punches.
I can’t emphasise how important it is to read through the entirety of the case papers thoroughly at an early stage of your preparation. I read through the papers from beginning to end at least twice before I so much as pick up a pen. Once you do this you are invested in the case and from this moment onwards, whether you like it or not, a part of your brain will stubbornly continue to process the evidence, analyse the case and commence an engagement with it which will last until the conclusion of the trial itself. (If you hadn’t worked it out already I’m sure you are now beginning to appreciate that this is hardly a 9-5 sort of job).
Some of my best preparation is done away from my desk. I might be getting on with other things entirely when aspects of the case may jump out at me. It is important to allow time to simply think through the case be it considering the credibility of a particular witness, rehearsing lines of cross examination or perhaps even polishing off arguments for a speech. In order to start the process of thinking through a case you need to first embark on a patient and thorough reading and re-reading of the papers.
When you’re given your first case, rather than finding yourself one of a large team of defence, you may well find yourself pretty much on your own . You will soon learn that your true allies in this work are really your highlighter markers, post-it notes and any other stationary which can in some way help you organise and navigate your way around the papers. You should also form the good habit early on of compiling chronologies and lists of the important witnesses (dramatis personae) and any other device which can help you remain on top of the detail. This may seem unnecessary in a small one witness case but as you progress and take on more complex cases the task of staying afloat of the detail becomes all the more challenging and so ensure you start as you mean to go on.
Organisation is vital for two reasons; first to ensure you maintain an air of professionalism in court. It is through a professional demeanour that you can be most persuasive and being organised is key. There is no better way to get off to a good start than to be the one person in court who knows where a certain part of the evidence is located and provide some timely assistance to the judge in directing him to a particular page especially when in doing so it means you start scoring points against the other side. The second reason is that during the fast moving and high pressured criminal trial you simply don’t have the time to spend leafing through a dense heap of papers. You need to have the information at your finger tips or otherwise your timing and delivery goes out the window and you lose the point and perhaps the tribunal with it.
Once I’ve read through the papers, armed myself with post-its and prepared my chronology, I then start drafting my closing speech. Even though the speech is the very last act of the proceedings, the exercise of drafting the speech at the outset helps you focus on the arguments you would ideally hope to make on behalf of your client if all goes to plan at trial. It helps to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the case and the main objectives in the handling of each witness. You begin to think about how best to bolster the good points and exploit the weaknesses and at the same time how to soften the impact of the more problematic areas of the evidence. With these objectives in mind you can begin to start formulating your cross examination and indeed prepare the examination of your own client in his evidence in chief. In this way, your closing speech becomes your main battle plan, a blue print for how you would like to see the trial conducted.
In America, the defendant will sit next to his lawyer in the courtroom and will be in a far better position to discuss the case with his legal representation as the proceedings are ongoing. In the UK, the situation is quite different. Through tradition and custom, rather than any specific law, the defendant will remain in the dock, usually located at the back of court, (a position that has come under challenge in the European Court of Human Rights). This can create an artificial divide between lawyer and client. However, you must always remember it is your client’s case you are fighting and they have to be involved at every step of the way. Make sure you spend time with your client and explain everything in detail both in terms of the case itself and your view of the strengths and weaknesses in the evidence. Ensure you obtain full and clear instructions upon every aspect of the evidence and spend time thinking how you can assist your defendant present his evidence in the clearest and most compelling way in his examination in chief.
Scenarios will always arise at trial that you simply cannot plan for in advance. These unexpected contingencies can be stressful to deal with and require difficult tactical decisions to be taken at short notice. What is crucial, however, is that you don’t forget your client. Make sure you discuss every development with your client and ensure you take clear instructions as the trial progresses. If necessary, do not be afraid to ask the judge for more time in order to do this properly and be firm and resolute in this. Your client may well be facing one of the most difficult and stressful moments of his life. You are the only protection, so rather than leave your client isolated at the back of court, involve them in your preparation and demonstrate by this that you are fighting for them.
Following this week’s events at the World Championships, where we saw Usain Bolt’s career finale in a loss to US athlete Justin Gatlin, Sharon Daboul, Senior Associate at EIP, discusses with Lawyer Monthly the future of Usain Bolt’s long-lasting brand and trademark(s).
As Usain Bolt prepares to end his glittering career in athletics, it seems an apt time to consider how he might capitalise on the fame and image he has built alongside his achievements. Bolt has registered a number of trademarks, covering his name, the “lightning bolt” pose, his signature, the slogan “BOLT TO THE WORLD” and most recently, his initials. Collectively, these show that he understands the importance of protecting and commercialising his personal brand.
Whilst Usain Bolt has made his name as a sportsman, his brand insignia can be used to sell a huge range of merchandise, from perfume to clothing to sports products. Licensing can generate a valuable income that will outlive his years as a sportsman. Through careful brand management, his name and image have the potential to become his most important asset, and lasting legacy. An example is the tennis champion Fred Perry, whose name is now synonymous with fashion and sportswear, far above his tennis career as an individual.
The “lightning bolt” pose has been registered as a figurative mark, which means that he could stop others from using that logo, or a similar sign, on merchandise.
It’s unlikely that he could stop others from copying the physical gesture itself, nor is the gesture likely to meet the requirements for protection as a trademark. This means that fans, and other personalities, may imitate the pose without having to pay royalties. Trying to prevent others from imitating his gesture would seem counter-productive, in any event, as the gesture is used as a promotional tool which helps to elevate his status. However, Bolt now has the exclusive right to sell clothing and other merchandise bearing its likeness.
According to reports, the forthcoming split between Roman Abramovich, billionaire Russian tycoon and owner of Chelsea FC, and his wife Dasha Zhukova could be one of the biggest divorce cases ever in London. Below are some comments Lawyer Monthly has heard from legal experts on the divorce.
Richard Kershaw, Partner in the Family department at Hunters Solicitors:
There is likely to be a nuptial agreement regulating how the parties' assets should be divided on divorce and in which country the divorce should take place.
It would be unsurprising if the choice of jurisdiction is Russia and not London. If the divorce takes place in London, it is likely to be settled out of court through arbitration, away from the public eye.
With the marriage being relatively short, and the bedrock of Mr Abramovich's wealth having been accumulated before the marriage, there is no realistic likelihood of a 50-50 split.
If the matter is disputed in London, Mrs Abramovich's settlement will be calculated by reference to her "needs, generously interpreted".
Needs in this sort of case, excluding the needs of the two children, revolve around three primary items – properties and running costs; holidays & travel; personal expenditure (e.g. entertaining, clothing & personal security). With an international lifestyle and multiple properties, "needs" can easily run into the millions each year, on top of outright capital provision for properties, private jet & yachts.
Hypothetically, if these "income needs" were £5m, when capitalised to effect a clean break for a 36-year-old woman this would require a settlement of £162m, on top of capital for properties, private jets, yachts and whatever she already owns.
Bryan Scant, Solicitor at Coffin Mew:
This is another opportunity for the English courts to demonstrate their sometimes generous approach to dividing assets on divorce. As one of the parties lives in the UK it would be perfectly reasonable for Ms Zhukova to issue proceedings here to take advantage of England’s generous reputation.
Given the length of their marriage, an equal division of the assets may be an optimistic demand for Ms. Zhukova, but the courts won’t see her go without either. Mr Abramovich is extremely wealthy and that will have been reflected in their lifestyle, which the court will take into consideration when dividing their assets and addressing Ms Zhukova’s needs moving forward, especially as they have children together. It’s safe to say that she is still going to enjoy a lifestyle that many of us can only dream of!
Provoking the US LGBT community, President Trump recently announced that transgender people would no longer be permitted to serve in the country’s military. This leaves just 18 more nations around the world that do not discriminate against people entering the military based on gender identity.
Of course the announcement was made via twitter, Trump’s go to press platform, after saying he had discussed the matter with generals and military experts, and concluded that transgender individuals cannot serve in any capacity due to their tremendous medical costs and disruption.
Following this news a few weeks back, Lawyer Monthly reached out to US sources and experts and heard a few of Your Thoughts on the legal and social matters surrounding this discourse, both of which offer a variant opinion either side of the coin.
Matt Pinsker, Adjunct Professor of Homeland Security, Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU), Captain in the US Army Reserve, Judge Advocate Generals Corps (JAG):
This transgender issue in the military is very simple in that any individual meeting either criteria, let alone both, should not join the military:
The argument “anyone capable of serving should have the opportunity” is an appeal to emotion instead of logic and reason. The military exists to fight and win wars, and anything interfering with that ability does not belong. There are many great people with a lot to offer, but for a number of reasons ranging from medical issues to simply not the right personality, should not be in the military.
You don't have to be in the military to serve your country, and I'm not just talking about civilian opportunities in the Department of Defense. You can volunteer or do charity work, or have a professional career helping others in education, public safety, and medicine.
Kalpana Kotagal, Partner & member of the firm’s Civil Rights & Employment practice group, and Chair of the firm’s Hiring and Diversity Committee, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll:
President Trump’s policy-by-tweet banning transgender Americans from serving in the military is a head-scratcher – legally, as well as politically.
The president’s tweets do not amount to any change in Pentagon policy toward transgender service members. Moreover, moving forward with such a regressive policy goes against the president’s own military leaders who have affirmed their support for transgender service members in their ranks.
Some reports indicate that White House Counsel has approved official military guidance for implementing the ban. If the proposal is codified, it will certainly face legal challenge ̶ leading LGBTQ advocacy groups, Lambda Legal and OutServe-Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN), have already pledged to file suit.
Federal courts have demonstrated their willingness to dismantle policies that discriminate against transgender individuals, drawing upon the Supreme Court’s decision nearly 30 years ago, in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins. In that case, the Court established that employment discrimination for failure to conform to sex-stereotypes violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In a series of recent cases, courts have applied similar reasoning to hold that discrimination against transgender individuals is illegal. This protection extends to those employed by military agencies, as we saw in 2015’s Lusardi v. Department of the Army. This line of authority raises real questions as to whether any ban against transgender servicemembers would withstand legal scrutiny.
The law, increasingly, does not tolerate discrimination on the basis of gender identity and, while there is more work to do before the LGBTQ community stands on even ground, Americans increasingly support civil rights for transgender individuals. Two new polls show that Americans strongly oppose President Trump’s regressive proposal—in fact, an overwhelming majority of adults nationwide support trans people serving in the military. And in response to the proposed ban, several major police departments across the country have encouraged transgender people who are dismissed from the military to join their ranks.
President Trump is seeking to roll back the clock with his antiquated view of transgender individuals. It’s clear that the president is out of step with where our military and the rest of our country are headed.
We would also love to hear more of Your Thoughts on this, so feel free to comment below and tell us what you think!
A male software engineer at Google has sparked quite a row from within the corporation. He allegedly sent an internal memo clarifying that gender pay gaps are not to be assumed as sexism. He has reportedly now been fired by Google for breaking the Code if Conduct.
According to the Sun, he blames biological differences between sexes for the low number of female workers in leadership positions. He said: “We need to stop assuming that gender gaps imply sexism.”
This of course flipped a switch so to speak and staff quickly shared the 30,000-word memo making it go viral. The US Department of Labor is currently investigating Google under the suspicion that it is discriminating against women based on its recent pay reports.
Reports claim he wrote that women generally “prefer jobs in social or artistic areas” while “more men may like coding.”
The document, titled ‘Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber’, was first reported to have caught the wind on Motherboard.
Danielle Brown, VP for diversity, integrity and governance at Google, says the document “advanced incorrect assumptions about gender.”
“Part of building an open, inclusive environment means fostering a culture in which those with alternative views, including different political views, feel safe sharing their opinions. But that discourse needs to work alongside the principles of equal employment found in our Code of Conduct, policies, and anti-discrimination laws,” she adds.
Google hasn't confirmed the name of the fired employee, but US media reports name him as James Damore.
When a huge company like this allows such claims to get out of the internal comms, rows are bound to be sparked. Do you think Google is rightfully being investigated?
While the title sounds incredibly bizarre, it’s absolutely true. A waitress at an exclusive London club has been fired after attempting to take home a piece of lasagne that would have been her free lunch but that she hadn’t eaten as there was no time to take her lunch.
In what’s possibly one of the most unusual employment legal matters at such a small scale, Silvia Mecati, employee at the Oxford and Cambridge Club in Pall Mall, had her handbag searched and found to contain a slice of veggie lasagne in tin foil wrap belonging to the club.
Earlier in the day, the club had in fact provided the lasagne for free as part of Silvia’s lunch break, but as she did not have time to eat it, she pocketed it for home time, as any sensible person would do. However, the club accused the 43-year-old of stealing and fire her for gross misconduct.
The waitress has been on a zero-hour contract for three years ta the club, and was very close to receiving a £1,200 bonus according to the Daily Mail. Silvia claims this is the real reason behind the quick and brute dismissal.
Silvia, who is native Italian and has been in the UK for four years, said: “At lunch I had taken a piece of lasagne but I didn’t have time to eat it so I left it on a plate. Near the end of my second shift I wrapped it in tin foil and put it in the fridge as I didn’t want to throw it away.”
But as I was leaving the night manager asked to check my bag. They had never checked my bag in three years.
“I told him, ‘I have my lunch with me because I didn’t have time to eat it and wanted to take it home’. He replied, ‘Did you have written or verbal permission from the chef or a manger to take your lunch home?’ I answered no.”
The next day Silvia was dismissed and told to clear her locker and hand in her employee belongings. She was later sent a letter from the club management reading: ‘Your actions can be considered to be theft in circumstances where you do not have permission to take Club food from the premises, and therefore a breach of your contract of employment…The gravity of your misconduct is such that the club believes the trust and confidence placed in you as its employee has been completely undermined…’
The letter proceeded to state that Silvia had broken rule 2.8 of the employee handbook: ‘The removal of any item of Club property from the Club house without permission being granted from a Departmental Manager or the Duty Manager will be considered to be theft and therefore Gross Misconduct.’
Do you think this dismissal was unfair? Should Silvia take legal action? How would she fare?
It was announced in April 2017 that larger businesses would have to submit a governmental report, detailing the gender pay gaps that present in their company. The deadline for the first pay reports will have to be submitted by April 2018. Below, Gideon Schulman, a HR director at Pytronot, specialists in payroll solutions, explain how business should best be prepared.
With gender pay filling the headlines recently, including Google’s discrimination allegations and the announcement of the BBC revealing huge discrepancies in male and female wages, it is not an issue that is likely to disappear easily or quietly. Chris Evans has been announced as the highest paid star of the BBC. He made between £2.2m and £2.25m in 2016/2017, meanwhile Claudia Winkleman was the highest-paid female, earning between
£450,000 and £500,000. These gaps are astronomical, the top seven earners in the list of the BBC's 96 best-paid stars, were all male. The gender pay difference reflected across each of the BBC’s shows and channels. This is now something they have pledged to make equal by 2020, other companies now have to prepare for their reports to go public.
It is important that we encourage organisations to take measured responses and not be reactive. Aside from the financial and legislatory risk, it can have a significant impact on stakeholders both internally, i.e. staff, and externally with customers. It is therefore critical to be proactive and as the scouting movement say, ‘be prepared’.
On the 5th April 2017, the Equality Act 2010 (Specific Duties and Public Authorities) Regulations of 2017 brought in a requirement that forces UK companies with a total ‘headcount’ of more than 250 in any one year, to publish data about their gender pay gap. The data presented should be seen as a snap shot on pay. What will cause some concern to businesses is the definition of ‘headcount’. Taken from the Equality Act 2010, this includes employees, apprentices and workers. Agency workers are included, but counted by the agency providing them. This is not an article to discuss gender biases but to discuss the practical implications.
So what does this mean in layman’s terms? Results must be published on the organisations own website and a government website within 12 months of commencement date: 31st March 2017 for Public Sector and 5th April 2017 for Private and Voluntary sector.
The data presented has to be based on 6 calculations:
While the government has specified that ‘any organisation that has 250 or more employees’ must publish and report specific figures about their gender pay gap, companies of all sizes can take steps to close the gap. Companies around the 250-employee mark or with imminent expansion plans should be particularly vigilant, as they are likely to be included in the very near future. Taking a proactive approach will only act to benefit smaller companies, putting them on the front foot and making the entire process far easier in the long run.
Organisations have the option to provide a narrative with their calculations. This should generally explain the reasons for the results and give details about actions that are being taken to reduce or eliminate the gender pay gap. By default, the regulations do not account for individuals’ knowledge, experience or pay negotiations, which may distort the figures and should be captured in the narrative.
Advice for all businesses including SME’s would be the following:
While the focus is primarily on larger businesses, ignoring the pay gap will carry a risk for SMEs. Ensuring policies and reviews are implemented now will ensure any systematic inequality is tackled head on; this then won’t pose a problem if laws for small businesses are introduced. This will not only improve your business’ performance but will undoubtedly strengthen the workforce and ultimately the economy.
For companies lacking the internal support required for these measures, seeking professional guidance externally can ensure businesses are given objective advice on data and options going forward.
In conclusion, although it may seem daunting and is easy to criticise the process, it will take time for the bumps to be ironed out. Equally, there is still talk whether it will move to less than a 250 headcount in the future, so being prepared is key to any business.
In this Alux.com original video we're ranking the top 10 richest lawyers in the world based on their net worth.
Top 15 with extra details here: http://www.alux.com/richest-lawyers/
Number 2 is actually 900 MILLION (not billion) - it was a typo!
In order to have the most accurate top ten richest lawyers in the world video we had to go through plenty of cases and press articles. Fortunately for us, the richest of them all are people who had their affairs public at some point.
Some of the questions we'll be answering are:
Who is the richest lawyer in the world?
Who are the 10 richest lawyers in the world?
Who are the wealthies ten lawyers in the world and how much money they make?
How rich is Michele Obama? Are the Obamas Rich?
How much can a lawyer earn?
Which type of law degree is the most profitable?
Did Russia decisively influence the outcome of the 2016 race to the White House? If so, what is being done to halt future meddling by foreign governments? On this episode of Politicking, Matthew Cooke, in for Larry King, brings in Roderick Jones, cybersecurity professional and former member of Scotland Yard’s Special Branch, to discuss alleged Russian interference and vulnerabilities in US electoral infrastructure. Then, John Iadarola, host of Think Tank and co-host of the Young Turks, joins to discuss millennial voters, their values and priorities, and what their attitudes might mean for the future of democracy.
Are you the archetypal law student? Watch the video for a few home truths about your degree!
Want to know more about the world's top universities for your subject? Check out the brand new QS World University Rankings by Subject 2017 now: http://bit.ly/QSWURbS_17_G #QSWUR
