A candid account of one lawyer’s journey to sobriety A barrister has opened up about their fight against alcohol addiction and the subsequent road to recovery. The unnamed barrister’s blog entry, ‘Addictions at the Bar — when a dry January is not enough’, was shared earlier this week by Wellbeing at the Bar, the Bar Council’s mental health website which offers a range of support tools for barristers and chambers. They open with an honest confession, “I am a barrister. I am also a recovering alcoholic”. Yet, according to the barrister, coming to terms with this addiction wasn’t easy. “[I]f you told me then I had a drink problem, I would not have listened to you. Yes, I would admit I was a heavy drinker, but I would never have considered myself an alcoholic. But over the years, I lost control over how much I drank and when I drank,” they write. It wasn’t long before the alcoholism impacted the barrister’s practice, particularly as heavy drinking left them unable to call into chambers. They recall often skipping work on a Monday to recover from “weekend excesses” as the weekend began to merge with the working week. “Eventually it was impossible for me to know what days, if any, I would appear and the state I would be in if I did turn up,” the barrister explains. His or her “professional descent” was mirrored by trouble in their personal life. Unfit for work, the barrister recalls struggle with rising debts, which eventually led to their flat being sold to cover costs. Feeling “hopeless and isolated”, the barrister relied on alcohol to cope with these negative events and to “drink the feelings away” — despite it being the drink which caused them in the first place. They continue:
Although subsequent trips to rehab and periods of abstinence appeared promising, relapses ending with “binge” drinking would quickly “dash those hopes”. It was at this “new depth of desperation” that the barrister began their journey to recovery, seeking help wherever it was offered. The blogger recalls visiting Alcoholics Anonymous, an addiction support group: “I had been attending AA meetings for several years, but for the first time I attended 90 meetings in 90 days.” With the help of LawCare, a charity that promotes and supports good mental health and wellbeing in the legal community, the blogger was introduced to a network of barristers in recovery from alcohol addiction. Another source of help was from the Barristers Benevolent Association who offered financial advice and assistance, allowing the barrister to “focus on getting sober”. The barrister also stepped away from the profession for a time and began a new job, finding comfort in its routine of regular pay and regular hours. “While at the time this felt like failure, it was, with hindsight, the best thing that could have happened to me,” the writer reveals. Taking “one day at a time” the anonymous barrister eventually achieved sobriety and other positives gradually ensued — from the clearing of debts to starting a family. Several years on, the barrister reveals they have since returned to chambers. “The early days back had their moments of worry; after all, it had been a long time but after a few months it felt like being back home,” they write. You can contact LawCare by calling 0800 279 6888 in the UK or 1800 991 801 in Ireland. The post ‘I felt hopeless and isolated’: Barrister opens up about battle with alcoholism appeared first on Legal Cheek. from https://www.legalcheek.com/2019/02/i-felt-hopeless-and-isolated-barrister-opens-up-about-battle-with-alcoholism/
0 Comments
Exclusive: Real estate firm still hasn’t been able to return Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner (BCLP) has temporarily relocated its Manchester office after a giant crack appeared in one of the building’s walls. The firm, which employs around 100 staff in Manchester, had to evacuate the Grade II-listed building last November when a fence smashed into the brickwork during high winds. At the time, Manchester City Council stressed that the incident wasn’t a safety issue and repair work was already being arranged. However, several months on and with all the building’s other tenants understood to be back on site, Legal Cheek has learned that BCLP, continues to operate from an interim office space across the street. According to one insider, this is because the 32-office-outfit is now in a “dispute” with the building’s landlord over the “repair work”. The 76 King Street building, which is home to other businesses including retailers Belstaff and DKNY, is currently owned by HPPUT, an investment outfit which is part of the Daily Mail & General Trust pensions group. It purchased the building from real estate firm, Aprirose, for £18.25 million in September — just months before the crack appeared. BCLP declined to comment. The post Huge crack appears in BCLP’s Manchester office appeared first on Legal Cheek. from https://www.legalcheek.com/2019/02/huge-crack-appears-in-bclps-manchester-office/ ‘Are they even a true test of lawyerly ability?’ In the latest instalment in our Career Conundrums series, one student struggling to pass law firm critical thinking tests asks for readers’ advice.
If you have a career conundrum, email us with it to [email protected]. The post Should I get someone to sit the Watson Glaser test on my behalf? appeared first on Legal Cheek. from https://www.legalcheek.com/2019/02/should-i-get-someone-to-sit-the-watson-glaser-test-on-my-behalf/ Free weekly sessions help members of the public and small businesses The legal arm of Big Four giant PwC has today launched a new pro bono offering in partnership with King’s College London (KCL). The tie-up will see around 30 PwC lawyers offer up their free time to work with KCL student volunteers and deliver the new community legal service. The weekly sessions will take place at King’s Legal Clinic at the Dickson Poon School of Law on Thursday evenings during term time. The initiative, which was co-founded by PwC’s Kirsty O’Connor and Keily Blair, will provide members of the public, sole traders, small business owners and social enterprises with gratuitous advice on one-off legal matters. It is unclear exactly which areas of law the clinic will focus on. Commenting on the new project, O’Connor, a solicitor in PwC’s regulatory and commercial disputes team, said:
Shaila Pal, assistant director of clinical legal education at KCL, added:
The new offering is part of PwC’s wider strategy for community inclusion and wellbeing. The PwC pro bono unit, which launched last year, provides its lawyers with the opportunity to use their skills and experience to support community projects and widen access to the legal profession. Legal Cheek‘s Firms Most List shows that PwC offers around 25 training contracts each year and has a whopping 743 offices in 157 different countries! Its newly qualified (NQ) London lawyers start on a salary of £63,000. The post KCL joins forces with PwC in new pro bono legal advice clinic appeared first on Legal Cheek. from https://www.legalcheek.com/2019/02/kcl-joins-forces-with-pwc-in-new-pro-bono-legal-advice-clinic/ Some legal aid lawyers earning £5 an hour Some criminal barristers may be financially better off if they turned their hand to flipping burgers in their local Maccy D’s, a senior member of the bar has suggested. Chris Henley QC, chairman of the Criminal Bar Association (CBA), said “too often fees for prosecuting produce hourly rates worse than wages at McDonald’s”, adding that this is “sadly” not “hyperbole”. Crunching the numbers, Henley noted barristers working on standard hearings which often require significant preparation and attendance at court for several hours are paid just £46.50. This equates to roughly £5 an hour. Figures published by the Bar Council show that the average criminal barrister earns around £40,000 a year, however, overheads including chambers’ rent, travel, insurance and pension can see this drop to just £28,000. Still significantly higher than the starting salary at McDonald’s (currently £16,640 or £8 an hour), it’s worth noting that the Bar Council’s £28,000 figure is an average, and in reality many barristers working on a fixed fee basis are earning well under the minimum wage due to the hours they clock up working on a case. By contrast, barristers working in the commercial sector can enjoy earnings well into the millions, with Legal Cheek‘s Chambers Most List showing pupils at the very tops sets receiving awards upwards of £70,000. Henley’s comments come just a month after it emerged that some legal aid barristers were worse off than the House of Commons’ head barista. Spotted by The Secret Barrister, the job listing shows the civil service role comes with a salary of £23,290 and benefits including a civil service pension, 30 days annual leave and a childcare voucher scheme. The post I’m (not) lovin’ it: Criminal barristers could earn more serving Big Macs, suggests top QC appeared first on Legal Cheek. from https://www.legalcheek.com/2019/02/im-not-lovin-it-criminal-barristers-could-earn-more-serving-big-macs-suggests-top-qc/ Creators of AI robot, ‘Kira’, also tied-in with new offering Robert Gordon University (RGU) is the latest to announce a tech module as part of its law school’s online postgraduate diploma in legal practice. The module covers the basics on what tech is available in current legal practice, the regulatory framework, as well as data analysis techniques. David Christie, a senior lecturer at RGU’s law school who helped design the course, explains their thinking: “The challenge is working out what law graduates entering the workforce need to know now, and also how they need to think about the changes which will come in the future.” News of RGU’s move follows on from a number of other universities launching similar modules. BPP launched its optional Legal Innovation and Design course in 2018, while other law schools have created tech modules more focussed on delivering tech tools to further access to justice, such as Manchester University and London South Bank. RGU’s law school partnered with international law firm, Addleshaw Goddard, as well as software and tech companies in what the school calls a “demand-led” approach to designing the module. RGU’s software partner is Canadian company, Kira Systems, which owns an artificial intelligence (AI) ‘bot called ‘Kira’, described by Legal Cheek as “a paralegal on steroids” because it can rapidly scan contracts and even spot legal pitfalls. The partnership is not surprising in that Kira Systems and Addleshaws are already working together following the firm buying Kira for its own practice. Kira is also used by the likes of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer and Clifford Chance. Aberdeen-based RGU’s module will include the less glamorous side of tech with lectures on data protection and cybersecurity. Ross McKenzie, a data protection partner at Addleshaws who delivers courses on these subjects, said:
Val Bremner, who has overall responsibility for the diploma and also lectures at the law school, commented: “At a time when technology is playing an ever-increasing role in the way that the legal profession in Scotland operates, we are delighted to be in a position to collaborate closely with experts to help improve access to the profession, while enhancing the skills of our future legal professionals.” The post Robert Gordon University teams up with Addleshaw Goddard to launch legal tech module appeared first on Legal Cheek. from https://www.legalcheek.com/2019/02/robert-gordon-university-teams-up-with-addleshaw-goddard-to-launch-legal-tech-module/ Hani Hussein also claimed to have completed the BPTC A young paralegal has been rebuked and fined £2,000 after she was found to have lied about her legal qualifications. Hani Hussein, who worked at Oracle Solicitors and Consultants in North London, posted her CV to an online job website stating that she held a first class law degree from Oxford Brookes University and had also completed the Bar Professional Training Course (BPTC) at the College of Law (now the University of Law). The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) found neither of these statements to be true. The regulator said: “Ms Hussein’s conduct was neither trivial nor justifiably inadvertent. Ms Hussein’s conduct was deliberate: she gave the impression she had certain qualifications and; she benefited financially from her deceit.” According to yesterday’s published decision, her employers discovered she’d cited qualifications that she didn’t possess after reviewing her CV. Hussein worked at Oracle from late July to early August 2017. The SRA added: “Ms Hussein was dishonest. Honesty and integrity are central to one’s role as the client’s trusted adviser. They are required of all those involved in the provision of legal services and Ms Hussein has demonstrated that she can act without these. A dishonesty finding is an exceptionally serious matter for a member of a profession whose reputation depends on trust.” On top of her fine, Hussein was handed a section 43 order, which prevents her from working in a law firm without prior permission from the regulator. Hussein’s legal qualifications were first called into question back in early 2017 after a photograph purporting to show a copy of her Oxford Brookes degree certificate (pictured top) began circulating around Twitter. Speaking at the time, a spokesperson for the university confirmed to Legal Cheek that she “had not completed the requirements for a degree and was therefore, not awarded the qualification.” Meanwhile, Hussein’s Twitter account, which has since been deleted, stated, among other things, that she was a “1st Class Law Graduate”, “BPTC Graduate” and “Future Pupil Barrister”. The post Paralegal who lied about having first class Oxford Brookes law degree fined £2,000 appeared first on Legal Cheek. from https://www.legalcheek.com/2019/02/paralegal-who-lied-about-having-first-class-oxford-brookes-law-degree-fined-2000/ Lawyers are no longer isolated providers of water-tight legal documents Few things can change a conversation amongst law students like commercial awareness. I know, because I spent two weeks trying to circumvent the Financial Times paywall before my TC interview in the City in a bid to impress my interviewers with the likely implications of Nigerian GDP growth. In the event, they never asked, nor did I feel like they ever would. It did get me thinking though. Why do so many technically capable and talented young lawyers suffer from the same crippling fear as I did — that they simply don’t know enough about the business world to be comfortable talking about it? The answer, I think, lies somewhere between the rapidly changing nature of the legal industry (which in fairness requires a bit of awareness itself), and the failure of the legal education system as it stands, particularly at undergraduate level, to adapt. The changes can be broadly categorised into two areas. Firstly, the emergence of technology and its capabilities in document reviewal and drafting. It’s very easy to hear the term ‘artificial intelligence’ and assume that sentient robot beings are coming to take our jobs, but the truth is far closer to home: gone are the days of the superstar warrior-drafter-lawyer who could grind out a commercial lease in twenty minutes flat. In five years, there will be software for that. Being a technically gifted lawyer on its own means increasingly little. The second change has much more to do with the way in which professional services work in general. The legal market is saturated, and with clients becoming increasingly conscious of the amount they spend on legal services (in light of more efficient, technological solutions) — lawyers can either choose to fall out of the picture all together or to change the service they offer. And, for those wondering, that means being commercially aware. It means understanding the client, understanding what they want, and understanding how they’re going to get there. Lawyers are no longer isolated providers of water-tight legal documents because, you guessed it, there’ll be software for that. In order to maximise the value they can provide clients, they’ll need to offer more than a document — they’ll need to offer real, business-savvy advice. This is where I think the legal education fails its budding scholars and where students can do better to prepare themselves for both interviews and City law careers in general. There is a growing skill gap between how legal services are being delivered and what students are being taught to do and think. I remember hearing that certain firms were more ‘innovative’ and ‘entrepreneurial’ than others, but not really grasping what it meant. In reality, it is those firms that are embracing those changes and doing their best to enable their young lawyers to shift away from the technical side to the client side at an earlier stage, thus providing more value-per-lawyer than ever before. The knock-on effect of this has to travel all the way down to legal education. If firms want to hire the best candidates for the job, and that job is changing, we need to be doing more to help those students understand how. It is one thing to know how a merger happens – quite another to understand why. If we can teach aspiring lawyers the answers to these broader, ‘commercial’ questions, then we are preparing them far better for what’s to come. I remember being distinctly frustrated at the lack of opportunity in my degree to study business, the economy or anything more interesting than Mrs Donoghue and the snail. It is no wonder that many students get to interview and feel a little bewildered by how law firms actually operate and the services they offer – they have never been taught. Advocating for a more practical approach to legal undergraduate study doesn’t come without its controversies. The LPC is supposed to shoulder some of that burden. But the unhappy truth is that in an increasingly uncertain and competitive job market, students have to think about their careers far earlier than ever, and we would do well to be affording them the why, not just the how. Robots are not coming to take our jobs — but they are changing the way we do them, and the students, universities and law firms that are up for the task of meeting that change head on will be those that prosper. David Smith (pseudonym) is studying law at university in London and has training contract lined up at a silver circle law firm. The post Robots are not coming to take our jobs — but they are changing the way we do them appeared first on Legal Cheek. from https://www.legalcheek.com/2019/02/robots-are-not-coming-to-take-our-jobs-but-they-are-changing-the-way-we-do-them/
Big Tech got a big scare on Tuesday when federal regulators launched a task force to patrol the market for signs of outsized power and to re-examine the validity of mergers that closed years ago. The prospect that the likes of Facebook and Google could be forced to give up crown jewels acquired for billions of dollars — WhatsApp, in the case of Facebook, and YouTube or DoubleClick, for Google — is the most striking sign yet of the public's unease with the corporations that dominate the internet age. But while the Federal Trade Commission's so-called Technology Task Force heralds a new era of scrutiny for an industry accustomed to hands-off treatment, industry insiders say the chances of mergers being reversed are highly unlikely. "The idea of breaking up any company, particularly a company that doesn't have easily separable assets like a tech company, that's the nuclear option and it's almost never used," said Mark Ostrau, an antitrust lawyer with Fenwick & West. Ostrau said what's more likely is that the task force looks "more seriously" at new, technology-specific theories of what violates antitrust laws. The unprecedented changes enabled by online technology, from retail to transportation, have upended long established industries and, some say, allowed newcomers to sidestep ground rules that no longer reflect the realities of the market. Most recently, antitrust law in the US has focused on whether or not consumers have access to low-cost goods. So while a company like Walmart may have had a large share of a market, regulators weren't concerned so long as there wasn't price gouging. Read more: US antitrust merger investigations neared record lows in 2018 even as scrutiny of Facebook, Google and Amazon picked up On the more obscure side, Ostrau said, he also expects to see new developments in laws relating to anticompetitive price fixing through algorithms which enable competitors to automatically compare and adjust prices. "That's not so much a new theory," Ostrau said, "but instead of clandestine face to face meetings, [companies are] achieving it through automatic algorithms." There's precedent with Microsoft, CDK GlobalThe FTC's move comes at a time when concern over data privacy and the concentration of advertising dollars have come into sharp focus. High-profile scandals such as the Facebook/Cambridge Analytica data leaks, as well as concerns over the content that gets shared on social media, have increased pressure on the government to act. One of the most striking parts of the FTC's announcement is that it will look at both "prospective merger reviews in the technology sector and reviews of consummated technology mergers." This indicated to some that the FTC could retroactively challenge past mergers, such as Facebook's $19 billion WhatsApp acquisition in 2014 or Google's $3.1 billion acquisition of DoubleClick in 2007. One lawyer familiar with the FTC's thinking said that in all likelihood the agency won't waste its resources trying to break up high-resource companies who will fight its decision in court. The 2001 DC Circuit ruling on Microsoft's antitrust case set the precedent against breaking up a company which grew organically, and a merger would need to be directly tied to anticompetitive conduct for a company to be broken up as a punishment, the person said. The FTC has recently prevented mergers in tech, but it's rare. CDK Global's plan to acquire Auto/Mate, which was announced in May 2017, terminated in March 2018 after the FTC blocked the deal on antitrust grounds. In that case, the person said, it appeared that CDK Global wanted to acquire its emerging competition to squash it. This is likely different from a situation like Facebook and Instagram, where the latter grew into a formidable player in social media once it was acquired, the person said. The current antitrust laws would need to completely change for a merger like Facebook and Instagram to be broken up over unrelated privacy concerns, the person said. Whether or not the SEC wins its cases, Ostrau said that technology antitrust law could move forward on momentum alone. "There is some benefit in just opening the investigations and bringing the cases, even if the FTC doesn't ultimately win or get a consent decree because it heightens the sensitivity to a particular area of conduct and has an effect on the industry," Ostrau said. "To say, this is an area of potential concern, so we ought to tread carefully, whether or not there's a case." Hospital mergers show a way forwardMicrosoft isn't the only antitrust case to set a precedent. Others, including the FTC, point to its past work on hospital mergers as a precedent for what could happen with technology. The FTC said that its new Technology Task Force is modeled after the Merger Litigation Task Force, which was launched in 2002 to monitor mergers in the hospital space. That task force did in fact successfully challenge consummated mergers, including ProMedica Health System’s acquisition of St. Luke’s Hospital. That acquisition closed in 2010, but the hospitals operated separately during the FTC's investigation which launched in 2011 and ultimately required divestiture. ProMedica finally divested St. Luke's in 2016. While the FTC may consider this a success of its task force, not everyone is convinced that it went far enough. "The impact is merely slowing down a bad trend, not stopping it or reversing it," said Matt Stoller, a fellow with the Open Markets Institute, a think tank that advocates against corporate monopolies. "I don't think this new task force is meaningful. I think it's a new seating arrangement inside the building and I don't care about that." As for whether or not it's too difficult to break up two companies which have already merged, Stoller said companies prove they can do it anytime they decide to sell one of their assets of their own volition. "It's not like building moon bases on Jupiter, this is stuff they do all the time," he said. Join the conversation about this story » NOW WATCH: Why Amazon canceled HQ2 in New York City and what it means for everyone involved from https://www.businessinsider.com/why-ftc-technology-task-force-wont-break-up-tech-giants-2019-2
The Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) allegation that Tesla CEO Elon Musk is in contempt of the federal court that approved a settlement between Musk and the agency is highly unusual, former SEC senior counsel Thomas Gorman told Business Insider. Being in contempt of court means either misbehaving in a courtroom or deliberately disobeying a court order (the SEC is accusing Musk of the latter). The SEC rarely brings contempt proceedings, Gorman said. "There just aren't very many of these cases around," he said. It's particularly rare for the SEC to bring contempt proceedings against a corporate executive, rather than the operator of an illegal enterprise, such as a Ponzi scheme, Gorman said. The SEC sued Musk in September, alleging that Musk made "false and misleading statements" in August about the possibility of taking the automaker private. Musk and the agency reached a settlement in September, under which Musk didn't admit or deny the allegations in the agency's lawsuit but stepped down as the chairman of Tesla's board of directors for three years and paid a $20 million fine. The settlement also required Tesla to monitor Musk's communications, including on platforms such as Twitter. But in the months after the settlement, Musk criticized the SEC, saying in an interview with "60 Minutes" that he didn't respect the agency. And, on February 19, Musk tweeted a projection about Tesla's 2019 vehicle production that exceeded what the automaker had said in its most recent earnings letter. Musk corrected the tweet, but the SEC said in a court filing on Monday that Musk had violated the terms of his settlement with the agency by not seeking or receiving approval from Tesla before publishing his tweet about vehicle production. The agency asked a judge to hold Musk in contempt of the federal court that approved the settlement. But proving that Musk violated the terms of the settlement will be difficult for the SEC, which faces a burden of proof just below what is necessary for a criminal case, Gorman said. "The SEC has to prove they're right by clear and convincing evidence. It's not enough to have a preponderance." The most likely outcome is that Musk is sanctioned, fined, and given a stern warning about the consequences of disobeying his settlement with the SEC, Peter Haveles, a partner at Pepper Hamilton, said. "It's going to be the equivalent of hitting him across the head with a two-by-four in order to get his attention."
SEE ALSO: New York wants drivers to pay for its crumbling subway Join the conversation about this story » NOW WATCH: Porsche's factory in Germany manufactures over 160,000 vehicles per year. Take a look inside. from https://www.businessinsider.com/sec-claim-that-elon-musk-in-contempt-of-court-highly-unusual-2019-2 |
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 |