The morning’s top legal affairs news stories Judges told to limit observers if witness has to remove veil [The Guardian] Guilty of PC waffle! Top judge tells colleagues to not say ‘postman’, ‘lady’ or ‘immigrant’ in court because it might upset defendants and witnesses [Mail Online] Barrister Edward Cumming becomes ‘youngest QC in history’ after Westminster ceremony [Worcester News] Longer jail terms likely for knife and acid possession [The Guardian] I’m a human rights lawyer who travelled to Erdogan’s Turkey to see his political opponent tried in court. This is what it’s really like [Independent] Lawyer in Lloyds shareholder action asks judge to send ‘firm message’ to bank after ‘colossal risk’ of HBOS acquisition [City A.M.] Harvey Weinstein’s insurer refuses to pay for legal defence [Variety] ‘I was paralysed with fear’ — ex-lawyer details toxic culture at law firms [News Hub] Litigation Fee Earner sought by Canary Wharf-based law firm [Legal Cheek Hub] “Why did she think it a good idea to claim ten successful capital appeals AND eight results in the ET when volunteering for FRU?” [Legal Cheek comments] The post Morning round-up: Thursday 1 March appeared first on Legal Cheek. from https://www.legalcheek.com/2018/03/morning-round-up-thursday-1-march/
0 Comments
• The Trump International Hotel and Tower Panama in Panama City is currently the site of an intense business dispute. • Trump Organization employees refused to vacate the premises after being fired by the hotel's majority owners on Tuesday. • The international blowup could cause problems for President Donald Trump.
It's the site of a contentious showdown between Trump Organization staffers and the property's majority owners, led by investor Orestes Fintiklis. His firm, Ithaca Capital Partners, has a majority stake in the property, The New York Times reported. The owners chose to cut ties with the Trump brand last year, and have been in arbitration since October 2017. The Los Angeles Times reported the owners have accused Trump Hotels of "gross mismanagement" and "financial misconduct." But the Trump Organization isn't budging. In January, the organization refused to admit a team of Marriott staffers visiting on behalf of the owners. Now, the owners are accusing the Trump Organization executives of illegally encroaching on their property, The New York Times reported. Last week, Fintiklis showed up at the hotel to hand out termination slips. The Trump Organization team called the police and "barred the owners' group from entering a room containing the building's computer servers and closed-circuit television system," The New York Times reported. Trump Organization executives were also overheard shredding files, the Associated Press reported. The face-off turned physical on Tuesday, when rival teams of security guards began to scuffle in the building. Police were called again, and broke up the fight. One guard was handcuffed, but not arrested, after blocking police access to the building's administrative offices, The Washington Post reported. Once he was allowed to access the hotel, Fintiklis celebrated by playing Beethoven on a piano in the hotel's lobby, according to the Washington Post. And Wednesday, riot gear-clad police burst into the building to investigate whether hotel staffers were being paid. Panamanian authorities have opened an investigation into the tense situation. The ongoing dispute could bring about repercussions felt in the White House, possibly sparking concerns about President Donald Trump's international conflicts of interest, reported Business Insider's Allan Smith. Here's a look inside the five-star hotel that's the center of this dispute: The 70-story skyscraper is the tallest building in Central America and the only Trump hotel in Latin America. In 2014, Trump tweeted that the building's "design evokes a majestic sail fully deployed in the wind." The property includes both a hotel and condominiums.Source: World Atlas, The Washington Post, Trump Twitter Archive, Chicago Tribune For a stay in late March, guests can pay anywhere from $135.15 a night to $1,994.25 a night for the presidential suite.Source: Trump Hotels If the website is any indication, the hotel is still taking guests, despite Tuesday's fracas and an impending investigation by the Panamanian government.Source: Trump Hotels, HotelManagement.net See the rest of the story at Business Insider from http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-hotel-panama-city-2018-2 The White House announced on Wednesday that communications director Hope Hicks was resigning. Her announcement came on the heels of powerful White House staffer Rob Porter's resignation February 7 after both of his ex-wives accused him of physically and emotionally abusing them during their marriages. The administration has been rocked by a series of high-profile exits — including Sean Spicer as press secretary and James Comey as FBI director — since President Donald Trump took office in January 2017. Here are the top-level people who've either been fired or resigned from the administration, and why they left: DON'T MISS: MEET THE CABINET: Here's who Trump has appointed to senior leadership positions Hope HicksWhite House communications director Hope Hicks, one of Trump's closest confidants who's been with him "since the beginning", announced on February 28 she was resigning. The resignation came just a day after she testified before the House Intelligence Committee, where she reportedly said that she told white lies for the president, but never lied about anything consequential related to the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. "There are no words to adequately express my gratitude to President Trump," Hicks said in a statement. "I wish the President and his administration the very best as he continues to lead our country." New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman, who first broke the news, reported that it was not clear when her last day in the White House will be, but that it's expected to be in the coming weeks. Hicks told she did not know what her next job will be. "Hope is outstanding and has done great work for the last three years," Trump said in a statement. "She is as smart and thoughtful as they come, a truly great person. I will miss having her by my side but when she approached me about pursuing other opportunities, I totally understood." Rob PorterRob Porter, a powerful White House staffer whose profile has increased in recent months, resigned February 7 after two of his ex-wives accused him of physical and emotional abuse. Porter denied the allegations in a statement, and said he will "ensure a smooth transition" when he leaves the White House. The White House did not give a specific date for Porter's departure. Here's his full statement:
Brenda FitzgeraldDr. Brenda Fitzgerald resigned on January 31 after Politico reported that Fitzgerald purchased stock in Japan Tobacco while serving as CDC director. Fitzgerald had also bought shares of the pharmaceutical companies Merck and Bayer and of the health insurer Humana. The purchase of the tobacco shares especially raised concerns, because one of the CDC's goals is to prevent and reduce smoking. See the rest of the story at Business Insider from http://www.businessinsider.com/who-has-trump-fired-so-far-james-comey-sean-spicer-michael-flynn-2017-7
Google has been forced to clean house ever since a 2014 ruling that says Europeans can request to be removed from search-engine results. Google has received 655,429 requests to delist a total of 2.4 million URLs, and granted the removal of almost half of those URLs (901,656), according to its latest transparency report. The remaining 1.2 million URLs will not be delisted. The requests started rolling in after the top court in Europe ruled against Google in a case involving a man who wanted the company to take down a link to an article about an auction on his home. The court subsequently enacted the "Right to be forgotten" law, which rules that individuals should have the right to ask search engines to remove any results with their name in it. (Interestingly, 1% of the requesters accounted for 20% of the total URLs requested for removal as of January.) The requirements for Google to comply include whether or not the links are “inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant, or excessive." Requests are submitted through an online form, vetted manually, and then responded to via email. If they're not granted, for reasons like public interest and existence of alternative solutions as named in the report, Google provides an explanation as to why. If they are granted, the results are removed from Google's European search results. The ruling is very much in line with the European Union's privacy law, which focuses heavily on the privacy of individual citizens. But that isn't how things work in the US, so American companies or individuals hoping to take Google to court in hopes of a similar outcome should probably rule out that possibility. The First Amendment prohibits the the US government from making any law that removes freedom of speech, meaning it's a lot more conservative with regards to removing public information from the internet. There's also a lot of pushback to put restrictions on a company's basic technology in the US, while the EU has repeatedly shown to have no such hesitation. This was the case when EU regulators fined Google $2.9 billion for denying "consumers a genuine choice" when shopping online for products. Join the conversation about this story » NOW WATCH: These bionic arms make kids feel like superheroes from http://www.businessinsider.com/google-right-to-be-forgotten-law-in-america-2018-2 She claimed to have helped ten prisoners escape the death penalty An aspiring barrister who made false claims about her legal qualifications and work experience in an attempt to secure pupillage at a London-based set has been disbarred. Anisah Ahmed “knowingly or recklessly misled or attempted to mislead” the pupillage committee of Staple Inn Chambers in 2014 when she submitted a CV containing information “which was false”, according to a Bar Tribunals and Adjudication Service (TBAS) decision published earlier today. Ahmed claimed to hold an LLM in legal practice from Cardiff University as well as a diploma in forensic medicine. In addition, the wannabe barrister’s CV included stints at the Free Representation Unit (FRU) and the Centre for Capital Punishment Studies (CCPS) in Malawi. Incredibly, Ahmed claimed to have successfully represented eight clients in unfair dismissal cases during her time at the FRU, according to the TBAS decision. Also, she said she’d successfully argued ten cases on behalf of prisoners who subsequently had the death penalty set aside while at the CCPS. The tribunal found these representations to be “untrue”. Ahmed — who was called to the bar in 2012 — also claimed to have worked for an unnamed law firm. She produced a “forged” reference to the Bar Standard Board’s (BSB) qualification committee, this purporting to be from a “former Assistant Solicitor” at the firm. The reference was produced in an attempt to get a reduction in pupillage length, according to the TBAS decision. The five-person tribunal found this conduct to be “dishonest”. Commenting on the decision to disbar Ahmed, the BSB’s director of professional conduct, Sara Jagger, said:
The decision is open to appeal. The post Wannabe barrister who lied about masters degree and work experience in pupillage application is disbarred appeared first on Legal Cheek. from https://www.legalcheek.com/2018/02/wannabe-barrister-who-lied-about-masters-degree-and-work-experience-in-pupillage-application-is-disbarred/
Hulu's latest original series, "The Looming Tower," is a gripping political drama of the governmental infighting that led up to the events of 9/11. The 10-episode limited series stars Jeff Daniels as John O'Neill, a special agent in charge of the FBI's counterterrorism efforts. Michael Stulhbarg, Alec Baldwin, and Peter Sarsgaard also star in the series. It's a dramatic adaptation of Lawrence Wright's Pulitzer Prize-winning, non-fiction book of the same name. Critics have praised the wide scope of the first three episodes of the series, which Hulu premiered on Wednesday, with subsequent episodes appearing weekly. "The Looming Tower" currently stands at a 95% "Fresh" rating on the reviews aggregator Rotten Tomatoes. The series earned praise from The Washington Post as an "instantly absorbing" take on Wright's book. The Boston Globe's Matthew Gilbert described watching the series as "like watching Tom and Jerry play a testosterone-fueled game of cat and mouse while a venomous snake quietly slithers past them in a suicide vest." The "venomous snake" in the series represents the rise of Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden, whom the show depicts as being able to orchestrate the attacks of 9/11 as governmental infighting between the CIA and FBI steadily thwarts the US government's counterterrorism efforts. "The Looming Tower" is thus far Hulu's most critically acclaimed release since the first season of its Emmy Award-winning dystopian series "The Handmaid's Tale." Watch the first three episodes of "The Looming Tower" on Hulu. SEE ALSO: RANKED: Hulu's 12 original shows, from worst to best Join the conversation about this story » NOW WATCH: You can connect all 9 Best Picture Oscar nominees with actors they have in common — here's how from http://www.businessinsider.com/hulus-the-looming-tower-is-a-gripping-political-drama-that-leads-up-to-911-2018-2 ‘Silver circle’ outfit keeps all six rookies due to qualify next month City outfit Macfarlanes has revealed a perfect spring retention score of 100%. Macfarlanes — a single-office outfit which is part of a band of top firms known as the ‘silver circle’ — confirmed that all six of its rookies had put pen to paper on permanent deals. It has remained tightlipped about which departments its newbies will qualify into, though. Commenting, Macfarlanes’ head of graduate recruitment, Sean Lavin, said the firm is “delighted” with its spring 2018 score. He added:
Macfarlanes is traditionally a strong retention performer, regularly posting results of 90% or above. In the past 12 months or so, the firm has notched up rates of 92% (23 out of 25) and 100% (six out of six). It offers around 30 training contracts annually. Legal Cheek’s Firms Most List shows that Macfarlanes’ newest recruits will see their salaries swell from second-year trainee pay of £49,000 to newly qualified (NQ) pay of £75,000 — an uplift of £26,000 or 53%. First-year trainees currently earn £44,000. The firm was a solid performer in this year’s Legal Cheek Trainee and Junior Lawyer Survey. Securing an A* for its training, Macfarlanes racked up As for quality of work, peer support and social life. Back with retention rates and Macfarlanes is one of a handful of firms to have so far revealed its spring score. In December, Mayer Brown posted a 100% score, while Clifford Chance and Trowers & Hamlins confirmed solid results of 92% and 86% respectively. Later, Slaughter and May revealed a 95% score and Allen & Overy a result of 80%. The post Macfarlanes reveals 100% spring retention score appeared first on Legal Cheek. from https://www.legalcheek.com/2018/02/macfarlanes-reveals-100-spring-retention-score/ Oxford University grad Louis Geary sued the newspaper giant after it published his naked calendar photos without permission What do you do when you’ve poured your heart and soul into creating something, only for a national newspaper to publish it all online and insult it? This I wondered to myself as a non-law undergraduate, certain that something had to be done about it but not at all sure what. As part of Oxford University’s Raise And Give (RAG) society I had project managed the creation of a charity naked calendar featuring 75 of the university’s top athletes. This was a particular passion project for me, as although it was a traditional idea for a charity project, I anticipated that it would increase RAG’s profile and broaden its market to tourists. I threw myself into the unprecedented logistical and creative challenges that a university-wide calendar presented. Once the calendar was ready, we at RAG checked with a small selection of the athletes featured if they’d be happy to have their photos licensed out for media coverage and consent was given. We then sent out a press release to various news organisations, but were shocked to see the Mail Online publish an article that included every single photo blown up for the world to see. And as you might expect, the comments section was an unpleasant sight for anyone involved in the project, featuring quips like “Clearly it’s not possible to have brains AND looks,” and “This has put me off my late breakfast”. That day, a selection of the photos also appeared in the Daily Mail. Soon I heard a friend say that now they’d seen the pictures there was no point in buying the calendar. At the same time I had lacrosse players draw my attention to the fact that journalist Jan Moir, in her own column, had singled out their photo just to call the athletes “unoriginal” and tell them to “put [their] pants back on”. Comments like this added insult to the injury, obviously, of having naked photos published online, in perpetuity, without the subjects’ consent. At that point we didn’t even know how Mail Online had obtained the photos, as no one at our end had sent them to anyone. It turned out a local news agency had produced copies of the photos by navigating to a preview of the calendar’s back page on the Oxford University Shop website. I understand they screen-grabbed the thumbnail images, expanded them and enhanced them before selling them on to various news organisations, including Associated Newspapers (owners of the Daily Mail and Mail Online). At first the calendar’s photographer, a modern languages undergraduate, was very proactive in sourcing what free legal advice he could, and he managed to have a law firm write letters to the news agency and the Daily Mail informing them that they didn’t have (and never had) permission to use the photos. There was resistance from both parties. The Daily Mail claimed it had bought the images in good faith, but after a few exchanges it became apparent that no acceptable settlement could be reached without some form of legal action. I spoke with a few law students about what to do, and most of them shrugged and said it was pointless trying anything against a big company. Even the Oxford University Student Union (OUSU), which oversees RAG and the Oxford student body in general, didn’t seem able to help. Undeterred I eventually managed to meet an intellectual property lecturer, who told me all I wanted to hear: that something could be done. She directed me towards the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (small claims track), which was apparently created just for this kind of situation. Fast forward to after I graduated and managed to get an actual job at an advertising agency, I hadn’t forgotten the case, and managed to attend a free legal clinic at Queen Mary University in East London. I spent 45 minutes explaining the case to two students and, to my joy, the lawyer supervising, who was from Simmons & Simmons, later offered to take on the case pro bono. All this required, for their pro bono policy, was for a charitable organisation to be the client. Sadly my presumption that OUSU would agree to this was misplaced, as its trustees decided against getting involved. So, it was back to the drawing board. With the pro bono engagement fallen through, I undertook to sue Associated Newspapers and the news agency myself. Fortunately a supervising associate at Simmons & Simmons was willing to lend some informal advice along the way. I collaborated with a friend to learn the difference between a claim form and the particulars of claim and then write them up. I eventually plucked up the courage to issue the claim at court, only to learn that there are separate fees for money and non-money claims, so if I wanted a financial settlement and injunction (i.e. have the photos taken down) then I’d have to pay an extra £308. Given that this was my own money and I had to be prepared to never see it again, I decided to go away again, change the claim form and remove the request for an injunction. I figured that if Associated Newspapers were compelled to make a payment, they would probably take down the photos too, to avoid further action. It turned out I was right. Before I knew it, I had the news agency on the phone offering a settlement, while Associated Newspapers’ lawyers at RPC wrote to me announcing they would defend the case. I then received a long email from Associated Newspapers’ group legal advisor, with the managing editor in copy, attempting to poke holes in my claim and asking what, to me, were irrelevant questions about my level of legal experience. I received a paltry offer of £630 plus half the court fee. In my response I said I’d agree to settle for £5,000. At that point I was particularly grateful for the reassurance I received from the solicitor at Simmons & Simmons that there were various aspects of Associated Newspapers’ response that I could ignore, although the actual writing and negotiation strategy was left to me. Fortunately Associated Newspapers accepted £5,000 plus fees. I could have demanded more and risked the case dragging on for longer, but inspired by Deal Or No Deal contestants who needlessly overcook it, I decided to take my £5,000 and get out. Associated Newspapers was then keen for me to discontinue the case, which could have exposed me to liability for their legal costs; however, I pulled out a seven-day trial of Thomson Reuters Practical Law to learn about consent orders and then drafted a Tomlin Order. Once sealed, this would protect me from costs and keep the case alive in the event of repeat infringement. It would also allow me to keep the news agency’s settlement amount confidential from the court, which I offered as part of our negotiation. Once I received the money, I contacted the four student-elected charities that the calendar was created for, offering an equal share in the total settlement received. Incidentally one charity never responded, so I opted to donate instead to Streets Ahead Rwanda, a brilliant charity I’ve been personally involved in fundraising for. Overall there are several lessons I learned from this, including that no matter how legally straight-forward a claim might seem, litigation always involves a significant amount of uncertainty. At the same time, I learned that part of the thrill of litigation is never quite knowing what your adversary will do next. The final lesson is to furnish your website with an email that works, as you never know what nice surprise might come your way. Louis Geary graduated from Oxford University with a degree in Psychology and Philosophy, and is now an innovation consultant at London and Dublin-based agency jump! Innovation. The post Two wrongs don’t make a copyright — how I took on the Daily Mail and won appeared first on Legal Cheek. from https://www.legalcheek.com/2018/02/two-wrongs-dont-make-a-copyright-how-i-took-on-the-daily-mail-and-won/ Number of privately-educated law students falls as state school kids increase by thousands2/28/2018 Exclusive: Profession’s social mobility problem not reflected at university level The number of law students hailing from independent schools has decreased by hundreds since the 2012 tuition fee hike, while in the same period the number of state-educated law students has increased by thousands. Data obtained by Legal Cheek shows that in 2012/13 there were 42,515 UK domiciled full-time undergrads studying law who were from a known and applicable school type (i.e. either privately or state educated). Nine percent of these (3,645) were from a privately-funded school. The latest available Higher Education Statistics Authority (HESA) data, from 2016/17, shows at that point the number of law students was 43,945, and 3,415 were privately educated. That’s a drop of 230 students or one percent point. It’s state school kids, then, responsible for the increased law school footfall. The number of state-educated law students has gradually increased each year from 2012/13 (38,870), and now stands at 40,530. That’s an increase of 1,660 or 4%. Over the same time period a similar trend is experienced in wider student populations, HESA data shows. In 2012/13, 978,625 state-schooled students were enrolled in UK universities, studying a wide range of subjects, versus 109,755 privately-educated students — that’s 90% and 10% respectively. By 2016/17, the number of independent school students dipped to 109,595, and had actually fallen quite substantially to 105,060 in 2014/15. State-educated students now top one million and make up 91% of the student population. With 7% of the general population having attended a state school, university statistics both in law and otherwise paint a fairly representative picture. However, the legal profession’s social mobility problem continues. The solicitors profession, bar and judiciary have long been seen as bastions of privately-educated privilege, taking on a far higher percentage of independently-schooled law graduates than come through the university system. And, when they get there, they stand to earn more money than their state-schooled peers, new data shows. Because of this, there are plenty of diversity initiatives hoping to hold the key to law’s social mobility problem, these including: the Sutton Trust, Big Voice London and PRIME. The post Number of privately-educated law students falls as state school kids increase by thousands appeared first on Legal Cheek. from https://www.legalcheek.com/2018/02/number-of-privately-educated-law-students-falls-as-state-school-kids-increase-by-thousands/ The morning’s top legal affairs news stories Evidence not being disclosed on a daily basis, lawyers say in survey [BBC News] Brussels ‘rejects’ Theresa May’s red line on EU judges [Evening Standard] Businessmen pursuing ‘right to be forgotten’ in High Court after Google refuses to ‘delist’ stories on past convictions [Press Gazette] Brexit legal text signals greater EU urgency [Politico] Solicitor loses appeal against order to give evidence on Russian client’s assets and not tip him off about it [Legal Futures] Richard Burgon MP: The metalhead socialist who wants to give lawyers a rebrand [New Statesman] Did Max Mosley mislead the High Court over his involvement with a racist political leaflet dating back decades? [Channel 4 News] German court rules cities can ban diesel cars to combat air pollution [The Telegraph] Litigation Fee Earner sought by Canary Wharf-based law firm [Legal Cheek Hub] “This case raises a lot of gritty legal issues about medical negligence-style cases and how the courts should treat them. Lawyers who sue the NHS are branded ambulance chasers yet claimants who hold the government to account through judicial review proceedings are branded as heroes.” [Legal Cheek comments] The post Morning round-up: Wednesday 28 February appeared first on Legal Cheek. from https://www.legalcheek.com/2018/02/morning-round-up-wednesday-28-february/ |
AuthorHi I am Alana Smith 35 years old living in New York. I am working as an assistant in local law office. I like to share legal news with people to educate them. Archives
April 2019
Categories |