Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
Satinder Hunjan QC, the multi-award winning silk has today joined Kings Chambers and 4-5 Gray’s Inn Square.
Satinder was head of International Group and previously the head of the Clinical Negligence Group at No5 Chambers and is one of the UK’s top silks. He was called to the Bar in 1984 and took silk in 2002.
Ranked as a number one leading silk in clinical negligence and personal injury in Chambers and Partners and Legal 500, he is also a patron of the Child Brain Injury Trust.
Satinder has developed an impressive range of additional practice areas including sports law, commercial and international litigation.
Kings Chambers was founded in Manchester in 1946 and also has chambers in Leeds and Birmingham with 107 members - including 17 silks.
4-5 Gray’s Inn Square is commercial, public law and international set of 35 members and 11 international members with 7 silks and senior counsel.
Satinder Hunjan QC, said: “I am delighted to accept the invitations to join Kings Chambers and 4-5 Gray’s Inn Square. Both have incredible reputations and standing; they have huge ambition and I am very much looking forward and excited to be working with the teams there.”
Stephen Loxton, Chief Clerk at Kings Chambers, said: “We are thrilled that Satinder Hunjan QC has accepted our invitation to join us at Kings Chambers. With a reputation as one of the leading silks of his generation he needs no introduction to many in the legal profession. All our members and staff are delighted to welcome him to our set and we are looking forward to working with him in the years to come.”
John Lister, Director of Chambers at 4-5 Gray’s Inn Square, added: “We are delighted that Satinder has accepted our invitation to join 4-5. His track record speaks for itself, significantly adding to our strength at the pinnacle of Chambers. His practice areas are a perfect fit.
(Source: www.rmspr.co.uk)
Research conducted by GO DPO, the strategic partner for the Henley Data Protection Officer (DPO) Programme, estimates that around 7,000 large companies (employing in excess of 250 employees) will need to recruit and train at least one DPO each over the next 24 months; between now and when the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) comes into force on 25th May 2018, that equates to having to train around 14 DPOs every single working day.
Darren Verrian, CEO, GO DPO explains: “This headline figure of 7,000 DPOs isn’t a wild exaggeration and if anything is an under-estimate of the actual requirement as many banks and insurance companies employ more than one senior manager to fulfil the requirements of a DPO whose role can involve handling millions of customer and client accounts.
“Our conservative calculations are based on figures published by the BIS at the end of last year and exclude 33,000 medium-sized companies that employ 50-249 employees, many of which will also need to appoint a DPO.
“Not all companies will want to employ an in-house DPO but will opt for a third party provided DPO managed service. However, these independent contractors will also need to be trained.”
As a result of demand, particularly from the financial services sector, for senior manager training for those to be appointed as a DPO, Henley Business School has just launched its own Executive Education DPO Programme and expects to have a significant number of enrolments over the next six months.
“What the underlying figures for the recruitment and training of a DPO conceal is the vast amount of changes to data processing policies, processes and procedures that must be undertaken as a matter of urgency in order to protect business continuity in the face of one of the biggest shake-ups in data protection for over two decades,” adds Mike Davis, Head of Open Programmes at Henley Business School.
“Our DPO Programme isn’t about simply training DPOs to be compliant with European data protection law but is designed to help senior compliance managers make the step up to the new breed of DPO required under the GDPR. It also opens the door for the private sector to train senior consultants to provide a high-quality DPO managed service that will become an industry in its own right over the next couple of years,” observes Davis.
The DPO Programme can be experienced free by registering for the ‘Getting Started’ interactive Module – just click on the green “sneak preview” button on this web page www.henley.ac.uk/dpo.
(Source: Henley Business School)
As part of its commitment to the small and medium-sized enterprise (SME) business community, the UK200Group has launched its Campaign for Clarity ahead of the EU Referendum on June 23rd.
With this in mind, the UK200Group asked its members and their clients to contribute their most important business questions to a document that was then submitted to Britain Stronger in Europe and Vote Leave. The answers were received between May 12th and 24th 2016 and are documented in the report.
The UK200Group, established in 1986, represents a significant group of trusted, quality-assured business advisers – chartered accountants and lawyers – who have over 150,000 SME clients in total. As such, the UK200Group acts as the voice for 1,500 charities, over 10% of all registered academies, more than 3,700 farms, 800 healthcare businesses and over 500 property and construction professionals.
Head over to the UK200Group report for all the answers to the key business questions. The Remain camp, as the nearest to status quo, has had its answers listed first under a blue heading, and the Leave camp has its answers underneath an orange heading.
The UK200Group is impartial in the EU referendum debate and seeks only to provide clarity to its members on issues that will affect them. As such, the answers are provided verbatim from Britain Stronger in Europe and Vote Leave and are combined for the first time in this report.
The report includes questions from real SME owners in the following areas: Agriculture, Business Growth, Charity and Education, Employment, Healthcare, High Net Worth, Individuals, International, Legal, Legislation and Regulation, Quality, and Sports.
(Source: UK200Group)
Intellectual property law firm, EIP, is supporting the Remain position in the EU referendum, warning that a UK exit from the EU will be bad for IP rights holders and the UK’s creative and technological industries generally.
IP plays an important role to the UK economy. A 2013 study from the European Patent Office and the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market , quoted by the UK Government in its recent strategy for tackling intellectual property infringement for the next four years indicated that up to 39% of GDP across the entire EU was derived in some way from IP intensive activities.
Official government statistics from 2014 show that the UK’s creative industries are now worth £71.4 billion per year to the UK economy. Figures released by the Chemical Industry Association indicate that the UK Chemical and Pharmaceutical industry contributes over £15 billion to the UK’s GDP. Tampering with the protection currently given to intellectual property poses a risk to these valuable creative and technological industries.
EIP has conducted an analysis of the issues at stake advising that there are substantial benefits for IP rights holders if the UK stays in the EU. Leaving the EU would however likely lead to an indefinite period of legal uncertainty, as well as a potential loss in the UK of trademark and design rights currently held as EU registrations.
Furthermore, Brexit poses a threat to the introduction of the Unitary Patent and Unified Patent Court, a system which could cover 25 European countries and enable decisions on the infringement and/or validity of a patent to be determined on a pan-European basis.
The partners have posted a statement on EIP’s website, saying: “We, the partners of EIP Europe LLP, have concluded that we cannot adopt a neutral position on the EU referendum. In our view, the benefits for IP rights holders that come with the UK’s membership of the European Union are substantial.
“The EU interventions and initiatives in intellectual property have not always been optimal, but overall offer more benefits than drawbacks. The creative and technological industries are best protected by the United Kingdom remaining in the European Union. We support Remain.”
The referendum is being held on Thursday, 23 June to decide whether the United Kingdom should leave or remain part of the European Union.
(Source: EIP)
Related Links:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/creative-industries-worth-8million-an-hour-to-uk-economy
http://www.cia.org.uk/Portals/0/20150217%20CIA%20facts%20and%20figures%202015.pdf
More than half of women working in the legal profession – 62% – say their gender has hampered their career progress, according to research from specialist legal and compliance recruiter Laurence Simons. In contrast, only 16% of men felt their gender had ever been a barrier to advancing their career.
These findings, from a survey of legal professionals, are supported by Laurence Simons’ analysis of partner profiles at leading law firms in the UK. This reveals that just 21% of partners at Magic Circle firms are women and 19% of partners at Silver Circle firms are female. Overall, of the 1000+ partner profiles reviewed at leading law firms based in the UK, just 20% are women.
Given it takes three years to boost the proportion of women partners by 1.4 percentage points, at this rate it will take 64 years for male / female representation at the senior level in law firms to be 50:50. Despite these findings, most legal professionals do not think quotas, whether enforced or voluntary, are the way to ensure gender equality at the highest levels in UK law firms.
Most respondents – 47% – believe quotas are ineffective and that other techniques such as focusing on flexible working arrangements, retention of top female talent and leadership development programmes tailored to women should be deployed. A further 19% of respondents believe that quotas are effective for increasing gender equality but, nevertheless, should not be used. Reasons for this position include the view that quotas are patronising, anti-meritocratic and discriminatory. A significant minority of lawyers – 25% – advocate enforced quotas.
Last year’s report from Lord Davies on gender equality recommended that 33% of board members at FTSE 350 companies should be female by 2020. With four years to go, law firms have significant progress to make in order to reach this level of diversity, in terms of partners.
A report published by Grant Thornton in March 2016, showed the UK is below the global average when it comes to promoting women to senior jobs, coming below the likes of Russia, China and Italy – just 21% of senior management roles were held by women in 2016. This means the UK legal profession is marginally worse than promoting women to leadership than the UK average.
Clare Butler, Global Managing Director at Laurence Simons, comments: “Just 20% of partners in top UK law firms are women and although this statistic must urgently be improved, the UK generally is doing poorly when it comes to senior women in industry. Of course, this is no excuse for a lack of gender equality, but puts the industry in the broader business context. Two findings from our research are particularly concerning for me. The first is that 62% of women report being hampered in their careers by their gender. Second is the rate at which the legal industry is progressing in terms of gender equality. At the current rate of change we will only reach a stage where there are roughly equal numbers of men and women partners in 64 years, taking this achievement outside of our professional lifetimes – if we get there at all.
“Many of the top law firms are implementing initiatives and these now need to go beyond attracting, nurturing and retaining diverse talent. It’s also about attitudes through the educational process. For example, Linklaters’ London office works with local girls’ schools to encourage working aspirations. Targeting a later point in women’s careers, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer has a mentoring scheme for women in the business which focuses on overcoming challenges as well as the soft-skills needed for leadership. By targeting all these touch points with women and girls we can start to make a difference and hopefully bring forward the date at which we can claim true equality in our UK legal professional.”
(Source: Laurence Simons)
The International Bar Association (IBA) has endorsed ground-breaking guidance for business lawyers on how to practice law with respect for human rights. On 28 May 2016, the IBA Council, the organisation's governing body, voted unanimously to adopt the IBA Practical Guide on Business and Human Rights for Business Lawyers (Practical Guide) during its mid-year meeting in Barcelona.
As a service to lawyers everywhere the guide is available to download from the IBA website @ tinyurl.com/hm3y9hu.
In a climate where public demand for businesses to operate responsibly is growing and clients' demands for understanding the relevance and applicability of human rights principles and legislation to their business operations increase, the IBA Practical Guide is designed to help business lawyers around the world fulfil these demands.
The result of approximately 18 months of research and consultations, the Practical Guide was developed to facilitate the implementation of the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), the global standard on business' responsibility to respect human rights, authored by former Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General, Professor John Ruggie.
IBA President David W Rivkin commented: 'The IBA's adoption of the Practical Guide enables lawyers around the world to understand how best they can serve their clients in this new era and meet the responsibilities of their own firms themselves. Through this latest initiative the IBA underlines its continuous commitment to full engagement with the global legal profession, meeting the challenge of a changing world with heightened conscience while safeguarding the integrity of the profession. It is our intention to disseminate the Practical Guide as widely as possible through the Association's vast international network.'
The Practical Guide responds to growing recognition that the management of risks, including legal risks, means that lawyers need to take human rights into account in their advice and services. The Practical Guide sets out in detail:
John Ruggie, the author of the UNGPs, commented, 'The IBA Practical Guide is a hugely important step for respecting human rights worldwide, given the influence many lawyers have with Boards and CEOs. Corporate lawyers and the IBA contributed significantly to the development of the UN Guiding Principles. I warmly welcome this 'next step' guide for lawyers around the world. As states everywhere turn increasingly to transnational soft law instruments to complement national and international black letter law in the field of human rights, companies count on their lawyers to provide them with effective guidance through the complex mix of emerging standards to which they are being held to account. In this novel context, the IBA's Practical Guide is especially timely and valuable.'
Chair of the Working Group and Shift General Counsel, Senior Advisor and Secretary, John F Sherman III commented: 'In drafting the Practical Guide, the Working Group's goal was to demystify the UNGPs for business lawyers and provide them with tools to advise their clients on what it means to respect human rights in their business. This includes guidance on how to navigate the shifting boundaries between human rights hard and soft law. We particularly sought to listen to and address the comments of all stakeholders in the process, and are delighted that the IBA Council has unanimously approved our efforts.'
The Working Group, in collaboration with the IBA LPRU, has also prepared a Reference Annex, which, consistent with the principles of the IBA Practical Guide, will provide further detail and information on the various provisions of the Practical Guide. The Reference Annex will be available on the IBA website in due course. It will be a living document, updated as and when necessary.
(Source: IBA)
Two leading experts believe a recent Court ruling that a disabled man’s package of care amounted to a deprivation of liberty, could have a major impact on anyone tasked to care for those who lack the capacity to make their own decisions.
Annabel Kay (pictured) and Sue Allen, who work for leading law firm Higgs & Sons, believe the ruling in Staffordshire CC v K (Court of Protection 24.5.16), which found that a care regime had created a ‘deprivation of liberty under Article 5 of the Human Rights Act’ should offer a word of caution to those acting as financial deputies or attorneys for individuals unable to make their own decisions.
They also warn that where financial provision has not been made, the ruling may lead to monies set aside for on-going care, being used to fund court applications.
“The case involved a man who, following a road traffic accident was unable to make decisions about his care,” explains Sue Allen, an expert in clinical negligence matters at Higgs & Sons.
“As is required in such cases, a deputy was appointed who set up a package of care that included the purchase of a specially adapted house.
“Because the package involved the man being confined to a particular place for a ‘not negligible amount of time’ during which he was being constantly monitored, it was ruled that this had created a ‘deprivation of liberty’ under Article 5 of the Human Rights Act. The implementation of the care package therefore required authorisation from the Court of Protection which, in turn involved lengthy (and costly) legal discussions.”
Annabel Kay a solicitor in Higgs’ Private Client team who specialises in applications to the Court of Protection and matters where mental capacity is questioned, believes the case highlights an important issue for those undertaking such a crucial role.
“Care providers and those appointed as deputies in cases such as these, need to be aware that even where a care package has been developed in the best interests of that person to meet their needs, it still may be regarded legally as a deprivation of their liberty.
“In such cases, an application to the Court of Protection needs to be made in order for the care package to be implemented, or continued. Unfortunately such applications can be time consuming and costly and these costs will normally be met by the person bringing the application before the Court unless other means of funding are available.”
Sue and Annabel, who are both OPG panel deputies, recommend that anyone tasked with the role of being a deputy or attorney where someone has suffered an injury that has rendered them incapable of making their own decisions, should always take into account the potential costs of an application to the Court of Protection.
“I would always try to ensure the costs of a Court of Protection application are built into a compensation package from the outset,” advises Sue. “Because once a claim has been settled, any subsequent costs to ensure the care package is legal would need to come from the money set aside for the person’s long term care. This is something we do our best to avoid.”
Annabel concludes: “An appointed deputy or attorney, whether a local authority professional or a family member, plays a vital role in developing appropriate care packages for those who are unable to make decisions for themselves.
“This latest Court ruling has a massive impact on how such care packages are regarded however. It is therefore essential that deputies and attorneys seek expert advice to ensure what they are proposing is deemed legal within the requirements of current legislation.
UK MPs and their peers have stated that the collection of personal data on a large scale is not "inherently incompatible" with privacy laws.
According to the BBC, the Human Rights Committee says whole data gathering by security services is “capable of being justified.”
The UK government is soon to introduce the Investigatory Powers Bill with the intention of cracking down on legal transparency, but while the HRC deems this a “significant step forward,” it states that there is a need for more safeguards.
Civil liberties groups are concerned over privacy infringement surrounding the bill.
The bill is in its last stages of approval after a thorough year of amendments due to the opposition of three parliamentary committees.
The joint committee heading up the bill says the powers it allows are not "inherently incompatible with the right to respect for private life," and are "capable of being justified if they have a sufficiently clear legal basis, are shown to be necessary, and are proportionate."
It did however also state that further improvements are called for "to enhance further the compatibility of the legal framework with human rights,” according to the BBC.
Some MPs state the bill’s clauses are “too broadly drafted” and should be narrowed to prevent larger groups of the public falling under its radar.
Harriet Harman, the Committee chairman for Labour's said: "Protection for MP communications from unjustified interference is vital, as it is for confidential communications between lawyers and clients.
"And for journalists' sources, the bill must provide tougher safeguards to ensure that the government cannot abuse its powers to undermine parliament's ability to hold the government to account."
A severely disabled man who was born as the result of abuse by a father against his daughter has recently won the right to claim compensation in a landmark legal ruling.
The ruling effectively opens the door for people who have genetic disorders because they were born of abusive incestuous relationships to make claims to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA) – an option that was previously denied.
The ruling centres around the case of a man, now in his late twenties, who was born with numerous health problems including epilepsy, severe learning and developmental difficulties and hearing and sight problems.
The conditions were the result of a genetic disorder caused by him receiving a “double dose” of a defective gene due to the abusive incestuous relationship of his parents.
Judge Levenson of the Upper Tribunal has now ruled that the man is entitled to make a claim for compensation because he was “a victim of a crime of violence”.
The judgment comes after a long legal battle during which the man was represented by the law firm BL Claims Solicitors.
The firm submitted an application on his behalf to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA) five years ago. This application was rejected by CICA, and an appeal against that decision was rejected by the First Tier Tribunal.
Judge Levenson considered the case after BL Claims Solicitors successfully submitted an application for judicial review to the Upper Tier Tribunal.
The man was represented throughout the process by Malcolm Johnson, senior associate at BL Claims Solicitors, who said: “This judgment is a landmark ruling for people such as my client, who previously were given no hope of receiving any compensation despite their often severe and debilitating conditions.
“The law on this type of case was thought to be settled – that is to say that a person bringing a claim to the CICA for genetic disorders caused by incestuous relationships would not be successful.
“This significant judgment of Judge Levenson now establishes that such a claim can be made. We are delighted to have achieved this result for our client, which effectively opens the door for people who have suffered genetic health problems as the result of a criminal act to seek compensation.”
Following Judge Levenson’s ruling, the CICA has obtained permission to appeal the judgment, which means the case will now go to the Court of Appeal for a further ruling.
(Source: BL Claims Solicitors)
Law firms’ bank debts have jumped 36% in the past year, from an average of £28,000 to £38,000 per equity partner, as the profession targets growth, says Hazlewoods, Chartered Accountants and Business Advisers who specialise in the legal profession.
Hazlewoods says that as workloads increase across the profession, many firms are increasing headcount and raising staff salaries, and returning to investment in assets such as IT systems and software that may have been put off for several years.
Hazlewoods adds that many law firms may have been forced to increase their borrowing due to having more cash tied up in unpaid billing and work in progress. The firm explains that for this reason, working capital is often tighter during times of expansion than during a recession.
Non-bank debts have also risen from £10,000 to £17,000 per equity partner in the past year.
Jon Cartwright, Legal Team Partner at Hazlewoods, comments: “Bank debt is being driven up in part by the legal profession being a victim of its own success – workloads and billing are both on the rise, and firms are ploughing that back into their practices.”
“As confidence rises, so more firms are feeling positive enough to take on more debt from their banks and make investments in staff and systems that might have been shelved years ago.”
“Pay for fee-earners and support staff are both rising, along with headcounts, and a lot of firms are now dusting down investment plans that were put to one side during the recession – renewal of matter management software, increased marketing activity, and refurbishment of premises are all on the agenda again.”
“While rising workloads and increased investment will be welcome across the profession, the ongoing issues many firms have with lockup – the wait to convert completed work into cash – mean that borrowings have had to rise to compensate.”
“Delays in payment rose steadily following the credit crunch, and for a lot of firms, lockup of four or five months has become the norm.”
Hazlewoods says that the average lockup among law firms is now 140 days, according to its survey.
Hazlewoods says that another driver of the rise in bank debt among law firms is the pressure applied by banks to convert overdrafts to term loans in order to speed repayments by their law firm clients.
Hazlewoods says that owing to capital holding requirement placed on banks by regulators, banks are continuing to reduce their exposure to types of lending deemed to be ‘higher risk’. This has made overdrafts of small and medium enterprises – including smaller law firms – a particular target.
Comments Jon Cartwright: “Banks are still understandably very keen to de-risk their balance sheets, and converting law firms’ overdrafts to term loans is part of that process.”
“As incomes rise in the sector, banks have seen an opportunity to get repayments started on some of this unsecured debt, and reduce their exposure to a sector that some of them still regard as being higher risk.”
(Source: The Law Society)
