The Principle - Issue 6 by AllAboutGroup

SPONSORED BY

Principle the

COMMERCIAL INSIGHTS & FUNDAMENTAL ADVICE

MAY 2016 ISSUE SIX ALLABOUTLAW.CO.UK

FOR ASPIRING LAWYERS

Brexit: possible legal fall-out?

The FBI vs Apple: implications

Exclusive disputes interview

Continued on page 4

Continued on page 6

Continued on page 10

With the argument about Britain leaving the European Union reaching boiling point, we examine the legal implications that might occur if the UK was to break away, as well as getting some exclusive legal insight from those best placed within the industry.

The cancellation of the Supreme Court case between the FBI and Apple regarding the cracking of an iPhone deprived the world of a landmark case. We analyse the implications the Apple case might have on the ‘Snooper’s Charter’ that the UK government is trying to pass.

The Panama Papers: just the tip of the iceberg?

With the biggest data leak in history revealing a host of leading world figures hoarding their money in offshore funds, Jack J Collins examines the fallout and whether there are bigger revelations to come. AllAboutLaw.co.uk

Richard Jeens is a partner at Slaughter and May, working in the disputes team. In an exclusive interview, he talks to The Principle about his career path, the most challenging aspects of the job, and some of the more memorable cases that he has tackled in his career.

t the start of April 2016, the Panama Papers were leaked, the largest file leak in history, from the database of the fourth largest offshore services firm in the world, Mossack Fonseca. The file was first acquired by a German newspaper, Süddeutsche Zeitung, which then shared the data with the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists – a global network whose partners include the UK-based Guardian and BBC. What has been revealed by the leak, of which the source remains unknown, is the way in which some of the world’s richest people hide their wealth in secret offshore funds, allowing them to exploit the lower levels of tax that are offered by certain nations across the world. While this is not always illegal, there is a debate raging about the unethical nature of tax avoidance through the system. Mossack Fonseca has been quick to distance itself from any wrongdoing, stating that the firm has been in operation for over 40 years, and has stressed that it has never been approached by, let alone charged with, any criminal operations. A statement from the company read that upon detection of

the Principle

A note from the editors

Welcome to the sixth issue of The Principle, the commercial insight and advice newspaper written by the team behind AllAboutLaw.co.uk. For this edition we’ve put together a fascinating collection of features grappling with topical issues in the world of law, providing you with a wider context for your studies and hopefully inspiring some debate. We investigate everything from legal issues around the Brexit debate, to the junior doctors’ strike, the court case between the FBI and Apple, and the latest scandal to hit the establishment: the Panama Papers revelations. As well as this, we’ve included advice pieces to help you with the essentials of your career journey: tips for how to make sure you impress on that all-important vacation scheme, and vital statistics – rent, salaries, nightlife – on UK cities with law firms, to help you decide where to apply for training contracts. We’ve also spoken to Slaughter and May about working in litigation, and have interviewed a trainee currently in New York on international secondment, to get the inside view on working abroad. The Principle wouldn’t be anything without our contributors and the support of our sponsor, Freshfields. Thank you to everyone that makes this newspaper possible. Until next time: good luck and enjoy! Emma Finamore and Jack J Collins Editors, AllAboutLaw.co.uk

With thanks to our sponsor:

Biggest leak in history gives plenty of food for thought COMMERCIAL INSIGHT

any “suspicious activity or misconduct, we are quick to report it to the authorities. Similarly, when authorities approach us with evidence of possible misconduct, we always co-operate fully with them”. What’s perhaps most interesting about the offshore havens, from a British perspective, is that so many of them are nations known as CDOTs – Crown dependencies and overseas territories that belong to the United Kingdom – for example, the Cayman Islands. The offshore tax havens are the last remnants of the crumbled British Empire, that have become known, somewhat sardonically, as ‘treasure islands’. The Panama Papers have lifted the lid on this tax evasion structure, and who’s using it for their own benefit. There are huge numbers of people who use offshore bank accounts to protect their own personal wealth, and it must be noted that this is completely legal – there is very little untoward about having a stake in overseas companies. However, what makes this controversial is that it allows one to gain financial advantages which are simply unattainable to the general taxpaying public, who are questioning whether it is acceptable to be the chief purveyors of a system which only allows its benefits to be reaped by the wealthy few. The widespread nature of offshore usage amongst the political elite is what has perhaps incited the most retribution from the leak. Over 140 senior politicians have been exposed as part of the set up, including 12 country leaders. At the time of the leak, Sigmundur Gunnlaugsson was the Icelandic prime minister, but the files on him revealed that he bought offshore company Wintris with his wife in 2007. When he entered parliament, he did not declare this, and sold his 50% to his wife for $1 in 2010. He originally stated that he had not broken any rules or benefitted financially from the company. However, the firm was used to invest his inheritance, which valued millions of dollars, and these investments were in three of the big Icelandic banks which collapsed during the financial crisis. When Gunnlaugsson became prime minister

AllAboutLaw.co.uk

WORDS Jack J Collins PHOTOS Claude Truong, Foreign & Commonwealth Office, Frankie Fouganthin, Gobierno de la Ciudad, Michal Koziczynski, US Department of State

Front page Some of the international figures implicated in the the Panama Papers leak.

Issue Six

Wikileaks, 2010 1.7gb

Luxembourg tax files, 2014 4.4gb

HSBC files, 2015 3.3gb

Offshore Secrets, 2013 260gb

in 2013, he was involved in negotiations which had the potential to affect the investments he made in these banks; and furthermore, resisted pressure to repay deposits in full, which would have affected both the banks and the Wintris bond value in a negative way. Originally stating that there was no chance that he was going to quit over the matter, and insisting that he had always put the Icelandic national interest ahead of the claims from foreign investors, Gunnlaugsson’s hand was forced after calls for him to step down from both inside and outside of parliament became too loud to ignore. Nearly 10% of the national population of Iceland signed a petition demanding his resignation, while thousands protested outside the government buildings and opposition parties attempted to bring a vote of no confidence in the prime minister. The mood in Iceland is, once again, bleak. After the 2008 crash the country found itself in severe financial difficulty as its banks, businesses and economy – founded on particularly fragile foundations – collapsed. The country owed more than 10 times its own GDP in debt, and the IMF had to drastically bail the country out. Reform was needed, and it came – Iceland was one of the only countries to jail many of the people that had caused the crash with reckless financial transactions. So with growth in the right areas, a new government in place that promised to put the country’s interests ahead of foreign investors, and widespread praise for their conviction of bankers who had been at fault, it appeared that things were looking up. Gunnlaugsson was installed as part of that government, a grassroots campaigner from a group known as ‘In Defence of Iceland’ – of whom a major point of interest was that is was crucial for citizens to keep their money within the country. So when Gunnlaugsson’s misgivings were revealed earlier in the month, it was a gross betrayal of trust that has led the Icelandic population to question whether their government will ever play by the rules that they’re espousing, or if it really is one rule for the people and another for the wealthiest. It’s a question that reverberates around the world, especially as there have been links back to some of the West’s preeminent leaders. David Cameron’s family are implicated, as is Vladimir Putin. A research facility has suggested that unethical financial outflow stands at over $1 trillion per year, which means that this problem is going to continue to grow. Leaders from around the globe have been quick to respond to the leak, with President Obama stating

“It’s a question that reverberates around the world, especially as there have been links back to some of the West’s preeminent leaders. David Cameron’s family are implicated, as is Vladimir Putin.” that tax evasion is a global scandal that needs addressing, and that these revelations made “hard working Americans feel that the deck is stacked against them.” It’s a sentiment shared by people around the world. What’s perhaps clearest, however, is that this may well just be the tip of the iceberg. Mossack Fonseca is the fourth largest offshore services firm, meaning that these leaks may well be dwarfed three more times if full transparency were to be demanded of the larger firms. There is a burning sense of resentment among many ordinary citizens, that the richest are laundering wealth, that many of them are the political elite in charge of policy, and thus in charge of taxation policies which have repeatedly risen. This sense of resentment is harboured by a cacophony of mistrust, and whilst Gunnlaugsson was the first politician to fall on his sword from these revelations, signs suggest that he may well not be the last.

AllAboutLaw.co.uk

The Panama Papers, 2016 2.6tb

Above The comparative size of some the most famous data leaks in history, with that of the Panama Papers. Source: the Guardian

the Principle

Brexit: the legal implications of breaking with Europe As the UK approaches the biggest political decision for a generation – the EU referendum in June – Emma Finamore takes a look at the potential legal fallout if the nation decides to leave the union.

n 23 June, the UK electorate will settle an argument that has plagued the British political landscape for a generation: should the country remain within the European Union (EU), or leave and go it alone. The outcome of the EU referendum this summer will have a huge impact on the lives of citizens for yet another generation to come, not least if voters decide to leave. Breaking from the European community – of which the nation has been a member since 1973 – will have an effect on trade, immigration, investment and jobs. It would have an impact on everything from what we pay for our fruit and veg in the local corner shop, to Britain’s standing in the world order. A ‘Brexit’ – the exit of Britain from the EU – would also have an impact on the nation’s laws: a significant amount of legislation governing the UK is tied to EU law. If parts of UK legislation are no longer constrained by directives from Brussels, then the British parliament could effectively scrap EU law and impose its own variants. Would this mean legal disruption? Well, it depends on the area. Take employment law, for example. Much of Britain’s employment law comes from EU directives, so in theory Brexit would mean an upheaval of UK employment laws. However Philip Landau, an employment lawyer at Landau Law Solicitors – specialist employment law solicitors acting for UK employees and executives – thinks that theory is questionable. “It is unlikely an exit from the EU would have any immediate or short-term impact on UK employment laws, and the chances are that even in the long term, the impact may not be that great,” he tells The Principle. “There are many areas of UK employment law, such as unfair dismissal, industrial relations and industrial

action, that are largely within the domain of UK and not EU driven legislation. Many other employment law areas are governed by simple contract law.” For Landau, many of the EU-led directives in employment law are now so well-established in the minds of the nation’s employers and employees that it is unlikely anyone has a great appetite to change them. “Where the EU has had one of the biggest impacts in employment law is in relation to discrimination at all stages of employment, including in relation to sex, race, disability, and gender. Another is in relation to health and safety at work,” he says. “If the government did try to water these rules down after a Brexit, this is likely to be met with fierce opposition, not least from unions. Many of the EU-led directives are sensible, and ingrained into the fabric of rules governing the workplace. Imagine if employers had a free reign to discriminate against their workforce?” Landau does concede that there are some rules at risk if Britain does leave the EU, and these seem especially likely to come under fire from a pro-business Conservative government. “Among the areas that could be affected are working time regulations. This provides for a maximum 48 hour week – unless an employee agrees to contract out of this limit – and emanates from the EU, as do the rules around holiday pay,” he says. “The [Conservative] government could look to unravel this, as they have previously given signals that they consider the shackles of working time legislation to be bad for business. Another area which could be unraveled is the rights given to agency workers.” Despite this, Landau seems to think that freedom and total sovereignty could be a good thing for the UK, as long as caution

AllAboutLaw.co.uk

COMMERCIAL INSIGHT WORDS Emma Finamore PHOTOS Philip Landau, World Economic Forum Annual Meeting

Issue Six

“There is no precedent for the kind of radical overhaul of laws which would potentially flow from Brexit. All the social rights in employment currently required by EU law would be potentially vulnerable.”

Opposite Philip Landau, employment lawyer at Landau Law Solicitors. Top right Boris Johnson and David Cameron are on opposite sides of the EU debate.

is exercised: “It would be refreshing for the government of the day to amend employment laws without fear of legal proceedings either from the European Commission or an individual for failing to implement a European directive, but it would be a brave government that did so either too drastically or too quickly.” Not everyone agrees with Landau’s assessment, however, and the TUC (Trades Union Congress) has expressed concern over worker’s rights if Britain were to leave the EU. It recently published the legal opinion of Michael Ford QC of Old Square Chambers, who warns of what he sees as the dangers of Brexit. “There is no precedent for the kind of radical overhaul of laws which would potentially flow from Brexit,” says Ford in the TUC’s statement. “All the social rights in employment currently required by EU law would be potentially vulnerable.” He believes many rights would be at risk if the government was no longer constrained by Europe: properly-paid holidays, protections for agency workers, health and safety rules, and protections from some forms of employer discrimination – such as compensation rates, and protections for pregnant workers and older employees. Ford also notes that, regardless of whether the UK government were to choose to retain any EU-guaranteed worker protections, workers would no longer be able to seek redress from the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The ECJ’s rulings make sure all workers can benefit from EU-guaranteed workers’ rights; a notable ECJ ruling in 1982 extended equal pay rules to include equal pay for work of equal value, benefitting millions of women workers. Ford points out that if the government opposes a decision of a domestic court, it can change the law. “I very much doubt, for example, that the government would have stood by, had the domestic courts interpreted equal pay laws in the way the ECJ has done,” he says. “It is easy to contemplate a complete reversal of the gradual increase in social regulation protecting workers which has taken place since the 1960s.” Elsewhere the view is equally confusing. When looking at intellectual property law (IP), for example, current UK and European patent law comes from the European Patent Convention, which – despite its title – isn’t tied to the EU and covers non-members like Switzerland. At the moment panEuropean patents are granted through the European Patent Office (EPO) in Munich and then essentially converted into national patents. UK-only patents can be obtained through the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO). EU member states are currently trying to match EU patent law and infringement procedures with the launch of the Unified Patent Court (UPC). Brexit would leave the EPO and UKIPO in place, but could leave the UK out in the cold when it comes to the UPC. “We wouldn’t be able to participate in a scheme

AllAboutLaw.co.uk

allowing businesses and individuals to obtain a single patent covering pretty much everywhere in Europe,” Bristows partner and IP specialist Andrew Bowler recently told Chambers Student. “We’d also be stuck with the existing way of enforcing patents by going through each national court rather than just using one venue. The aim of the UPC is to make patent law more streamlined and harmonised. Leaving the EU would cut us out of that plan. It might would make things more difficult for international companies operating in the UK; they’d have to make allowance for our different approach, which would increase costs.” The UK breaking from Europe would also remove from companies the option of applying for EU-wide registered design and community trademarks, as these are currently governed by EU regulations. Another area of law that would be effected by Brexit is competition law – laws that seek to maintain market competition by regulating anti-competitive conduct by companies. The UK’s competition law is closely linked to that of the EU. The UK does have its own competition legislation and a national competition agency, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), but it also enforces the competition provisions of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), and the European Commission enforces competition rules across member states. Leaving the EU would give the UK more freedom to shape its own competition laws; as the European Commission would also lose legal jurisdiction over the UK – so, for example, businesses involved in cross-border price-fixing covering both EU countries and the UK would have to undergo separate investigations from the European Commission and the UK, rather than just one investigation by the former. Currently, the European Commission or a member state’s national competition authority can grant EU-wide merger clearances – the review of business mergers to prevent any anti-competitive consequences. Some experts say that in light of Brexit the UK could consider a separate agreement with the EU, under which it allows the European Commission to decide on whether mergers may go ahead – which is what Norway has done. Alternatively, every merger could be examined individually under UK law. It is clear that the legal implications of Brexit would be complex and far-reaching; if UK voters decide to leave the EU next month, the nation will not just be leaving a political union and trade agreement, but a whole legal system, one to which it has been bound for decades – for good or for bad. If the UK does cut ties and go it alone this summer, those in the profession will have a busy few years ahead trying to prevent the nation’s newly independent legal system going adrift.

the Principle

The ‘Snooper’s Charter’: a rotten apple? COMMERCIAL INSIGHT WORDS Jack J Collins PHOTO Giles Lambert

In the wake of the dispute between the FBI and Apple in America, Jack J Collins examines the relevance of the US case on the UK’s Investigatory Powers Bill, commonly known as the ‘Snooper’s Charter’, which is about to be passed by the British government. 6

he case between Apple and the FBI over the refusal to hack into the iPhone of the San Bernadino shooter has been one of the most publicly contested and interesting cases of the last decade, pitting two stalwart ideals that the American public cling to, against each other. The case was closed before a legal conclusion was reached, however, as the FBI ended up hacking the phone without the help of Apple, and thus halted the legal process. But as the dust settles, what does it all mean, and how does it relate to the much maligned so-called ‘Snooper’s Charter’ that’s being put through Parliament, here in the UK? The legal precedent of the original case revolved around the principle of freedom of speech. Whilst the FBI’s antiterrorist precedent, saying that the unlocking of the phone was necessary to directly combat terrorism within the country, appealed to the sensibilities of the American public, Apple’s claim that this was an erosion of the constitutional rights afforded to Americans is one that appeared to rouse the public’s support slightly more. A ruling which became crucial to the case was the 1999 decision of Bernstein v. US Department of Justice, which ruled that computer coding was a form of speech, and should be legally considered as such. What this meant is that by attempting to force Apple to write them a new code, dubbed “GovtOS” - a code that Apple fundamentally disagrees with - the FBI were stressed as being in direct violation of the first amendment, because they are disregarding Apple’s inherent freedom of speech. This was the argument which tipped public opinion in favour of the technology giant, and away from the FBI. However, in the face of this hostility, US Attorney Eileen Decker released a statement towards the end of March, saying: “The government has asked a United States Magistrate Judge in Riverside, California to vacate her order compelling Apple to assist the FBI in unlocking the iPhone. Our decision to conclude the litigation was based solely on the fact that, with the recent assistance of a third party, we are now able to unlock that iPhone without compromising any information on the phone.” Whilst the lawsuit has therefore finished, the questions it brought to light regarding privacy of the individual, as well as constitutional disputes, are very much still out in the open. There are further legal disputes raging over similar cases – a case in New York regarding the phone of a convicted drug dealer has met the same resistance. A judge in February ruled in Apple’s

AllAboutLaw.co.uk

favour before the Department of Justice launched an appeal this month. Again, Apple has lodged a complaint expressly stating that the FBI had not explored all the available avenues available to it and that it was not willing to write software which would risk exposure of the phones of their other customers. Since news broke of the FBI’s successful hack of the iPhone 5C, it has been reported by Fortune magazine that Apple’s sales could drop. Of almost 2,000 people surveyed, more than 20% stated that the news meant they were unsure whether they would buy another Apple product. The most prominent reason for this was stated as being the ease with which the FBI apparently managed to crack the device, which was extrapolated to worries regarding government parties to access data. As such, Apple engineers have been looking for the flaw which allowed the FBI to crack the system, and have claimed that once this has been located and patched, there will no longer be a ‘back door’ available to snooping parties who wish to access personal data. A further legal challenge looks likely, where Apple will request that the FBI reveals the method it uses, and if nothing else, this will enable the technology giant to fix the encryption issue and assure their customers of the safety of their data. What can we learn from this whole showdown in relation to the Investigatory Powers Bill, more commonly known as the Snooper’s Charter? The first big thing to note is that the people on the two sides of the argument are the same. Since the Charter was revealed in 2012, it has been condemned by technology companies and security experts alike, and has been criticised as being an assault on the privacy of British citizens. The Bill has been amended twice already, but in March a coalition of six of the biggest technology companies in the world came together to demand changes to the bill which they feel is setting dangerous precedents, “which may be copied elsewhere and have wider ramifications for all parties, both in the UK and overseas”. The six companies – Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Twitter, Yahoo and Apple – submitted evidence of their concerns to the Public Bill Committee, an examinatorial body deigned to analyse the contents of the Bill before any vote in the House of Commons. It is the very powers that the FBI are trying to make Apple create for them to hack into users phones, that the British government is insisting upon within the Investigatory Powers

Issue Six

Bill. The difference is that in America, the FBI would need specific rights to enter a phone even if they were granted a positive verdict by a Supreme Court, which currently looks unlikely. In Britain, these rights would be enshrined in legislation, meaning that even with fewer safeguarding rights, the government would have the power to investigate the online and mobile movements of its citizens at will. What the Bill, if it were to pass right now, currently allows is surveillance of devices, including remotely listening to someone’s conversations; ‘equipment interference’ which equates to hacking; and perhaps most importantly, compelling the exceptionally vague ‘telecommunications providers’ to assist in carrying out a hacking warrant. The six company coalition, especially Apple, have attacked the ambiguity of the term, stating that the Bill allows the government firstly to reach outside of UK borders to any service provider with UK customers, and secondly, to extend responsibility for hacking from the government’s own work to that of the private sector. With this the exact fight they’re battling against the FBI in the Supreme Court, it comes as no surprise that Apple have taken a legal stand against the Snooper’s Charter. With a positive outcome of a legal challenge from Apple in the USA, regarding the privacy of mobile devices leading the way, it’s possible that this is only the start of the challenges that the Investigatory Powers Bill will face. The fact that the FBI pulled out of what might have been a landmark court case is one thing, but the chances of that court case coming on this side of the pond, regarding the Snooper’s Charter, is one that is now a distinct possibility.

Left The FBI eventually hacked into the iPhone 5C without Apple’s help.

Choose a firm where your curiosity, ideas and hard work will be rewarded. Where you can experience everything that a career in commercial law has to offer, through a distinctively flexible training contract and beyond. A firm whose international outlook and world-class reputation open up a multitude of opportunities.

See the whole story at freshfields.com/ukgraduates

42227_FBD_Graduate_Campaign_Ad_187.5x240.indd 1

AllAboutLaw.co.uk

Freshﬁelds Bruckhaus Deringer LLP

A career in law is demanding, so choose somewhere that makes it all worthwhile.

22/10/2015 16:55

the Principle

The Psychoactive Substances Act: is this really the end of ‘legal highs’? COMMERCIAL INSIGHT WORDS Emma Finamore

ichard Phillips was left severely brain damaged at 26 years old, after using drugs at a party. He now requires 24hour care and is fed through a peg in his stomach. The drugs Phillips used weren’t those we have become accustomed to seeing in the headlines over the last few decades – LSD and ecstasy, for example – but a substance that was completely legal at the time. And now the UK government is trying to prevent others suffering the same fate. The Psychoactive Substances Act received Royal Assent in January 2016 and is planned to come into force this spring. The Act makes it an offence to produce, supply (or offer to supply), import or export psychoactive substances. The definition of this remains controversially loose: it refers to any substance intended for human consumption that is capable of producing a psychoactive effect. The maximum sentence will be seven years’ imprisonment. The Act does not include possession as an offence as the government wants to avoid the mass criminalisation of young people. The main thrust of the legislation is intended to act against shops and websites supplying the substances (know officially as ‘NPS’ – novel psychoactive substances), as seen in Ireland, where similar legislation has significantly reduced the number of visible outlets. Importantly, the onus is on the sellers and producers of a substance to ensure it is not ‘likely’ to be consumed for its psychoactive effects. The Act also provides law enforcement with powers to stop and search people, vehicles and vessels; enter and search premises in accordance with a warrant; and to seize and destroy psychoactive substances. Some substances will not be subject to the new rules, even though they most definitely do produce psychoactive effects: some food, alcohol, tobacco, nicotine, caffeine and

A new breed of narcotics has been taking the UK by storm in recent years. The real key to their appeal? They are completely legal to buy and sell. This loophole will soon be shut down by new legislation; Emma Finamore looks at the issues surrounding it.

medical products are exempt from the scope of the offence, as well as controlled drugs, which continue to be regulated by the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. ‘Poppers’ – technically known as alkyl nitrites – were given a last-minute reprieve. They will not be outlawed under the blanket ban after outcry from the gay community: the chemical (first synthesised in the 1840s) has been used to prepare for and enhance sexual experience for decades. It is also thought to be relatively low-risk: the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Dugs says concerns about impaired sight and the risk of lower blood pressure related to use of poppers are rare, and that there has been a very small number of deaths associated with use. Exempt substances aside, Home Office minister Mike Penning has claimed the Act will end the game of “cat and mouse” experienced by authorities in recent years: where legal highs manufacturers have developed new (legal) substances as soon as old ones have been banned. Not everyone agrees with Penning though. “I think the Act is a spectacularly misguided attempt by the government to solve a problem of its own making,” George Murkin, policy and communications officer at Transform Drug Policy Foundation, tells The Principle. For Murkin, the legislation simply adds to problem rather than solving it. “The aim of the Act is to tackle the issue of novel psychoactive substances, or so-called ‘legal highs’, but the emergence of these substances is a direct a result of prohibition and the war on drugs: people only use synthetic cannabis products like Spice, for example, because real cannabis is illegal. So this Act is effectively trying to solve a problem caused by banning drugs, by banning yet more drugs.” Murkin also thinks, despite acknowledging the dangers

AllAboutLaw.co.uk

of using new, under-researched substances, the authorities and media have added unnecessary hysteria to the legal highs debate. “The media has somewhat hyped the dangers of these substances, in order to contrive a new ‘drug panic’,” he says. “While the number of different novel psychoactive substances coming onto the market has risen sharply, deaths from them are relatively rare, and levels of use are in reality quite low.” It is true that a clear picture of the deaths and longterm impacts linked to novel psychoactive substances is hard to find. For example, it has been widely reported in the press (including the BBC) that in 2012 there were 97 deaths linked to the substances here in the UK; but others claim the figure is misleading, using statistics related to illegal substances, not the legal ones in question. Critics of this data also point to its source as a matter of contention: the Centre for Social Justice. The think tank claims to be independent, but was founded by Conservative MP and (until very recently) cabinet member, Iain Duncan Smith, and has been labelled one of the most influential groups on David Cameron’s Conservative Party. Some say this means the figures produced may have been skewed, with the aim of supporting legislation the government already wanted to carry out. The new rules will also prove extremely tough to enforce, according to Murkin. “Legal experts that have analysed the Act have suggested it is too vague and broad to be enforceable. Taken literally, the Act could encompass thousands of plants, spices, herbal remedies, over-the-counter medicines, as well as household and industrial products,” he claims. Murkin thinks it is going to be very difficult to find a workable way of assessing which substances should be classed ‘psychoactive’, as substances induce different

Issue Six

Below Penalties under the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016.

Offence

Summary (Magistrates Courst)

Indictment (Crown Court)

Posession

Not an offence

Posession in a custodial institution

Up to 12 months and/or a fine

Up to 7 years and/or a fine

Posession with intent to supply

Up to 12 months and/or a fine

Up to 7 years and/or a fine

Supply/offer to supply etc

Up to 12 months and/or a fine

Up to 7 years and/or a fine

Production

Up to 12 months and/or a fine

Up to 7 years and/or a fine

Importation/Exportation

Up to 12 months and/or a fine

Up to 7 years and/or a fine

Failure to comply with a Prohibition or Premises notice

Up to 12 months and/or a fine

Up to 2 years and/or a fine

51 42

2009

Left Deaths directly linked to New Psychoactive Substances 2010

2011

responses in every individual. He says defence lawyers will find it easy to fight for their clients by asking prosecutors to prove that a substance meets that definition. “Without clinical trials or animal testing – which wouldn’t be allowed – it’s all but impossible to demonstrate definitively,” he says. Conversely, the government has claimed it is confident that a psychoactive substance can be defined, tested simply and cost-effectively, and subsequently proven in court. The idea that legislation will reduce use is also problematic for Murkin. He points to similar measures implemented in Ireland and Poland, where levels of NPS consumption, and the negative effects associated with it, have not diminished, and in some cases have actually increased. “So there’s little reason to think the Act will really do much at all, apart from shut down head shops,” he says. “But that will simply drive the trade further underground, most likely to online marketplaces. “I think it’s important to stress just how badly drafted this legislation is, some have said it’s up there with the worst British law of all time. It’s totally arbitrary and unscientific – hence alcohol and tobacco are exempt, despite obviously being psychoactive and rather bad for your health – and will put even greater pressure on scarce police resources. The government spent a pitiful amount – just £180,000 – on treatment and education programmes aimed at tackling NPS between 2013 and 2015. If it were serious about doing addressing this issue, it would invest more in this area, rather than producing legislation that is nothing more than political grandstanding.” One user of NPS shares this dim view of the new Act. Rob*, 36, from Preston uses ‘1p-LSD’ and ‘2cb-fly’ – both long lasting psychedelics – about once a month. Having had no bad experiences himself using legal highs (as has no one else he knows), he thinks the legislation will simply make things more dangerous. “Many current vendors seem decent and genuinely concerned with harm reduction – the ban will hand sales over to criminals, and there will be less transparency as to what is in certain products,” he tells The Principle. “Closing shops means the problem is removed from sight, but sales will continue illegally, and consumption will still be legal.” Rob says at the moment, with substances being legal and their ingredients listed, he feels he knows what he’s buying. “Internet forums help me make an informed choice, after I find out what is in something,” he says. “Apart from cannabis, I feel more confident that legal highs – at least those I have bought in the past – are what they say they are.” For Rob, legal highs should not be lumped together in one group. He thinks certain substances are risky and should be tackled, mainly by legalising the drugs people replace with dangerous (but currently legal) substitutes. “There a different legal highs and calling them all legal highs confuses some of the issues,” he says. “Synthetic cannabinoids seem to be the most dangerous. If there was legal cannabis, there would be practically no market for synthetic cannabinoids. Dont get me wrong, some of them [NPS] are problematic, but that’s mainly because they’re active in the milligram range – that the difference between a safe dose and a deadly dose is relatively small. “Beyond Spice [a synthetic cannabinoid] and the like, there are many people out there who use legal versions of Benzodiazepines, self-medicating for mental health issues like anxiety; these guys will suffer with the ban as they face potentially dangerous Benzodiazepine withdrawals and no access to them to taper off.” For Rob, and many experts, education and regulation is the answer to the issue of legal highs, rather than criminalisation. There seems little appetite for this in the current political climate, however, and it will be over the coming years that we see whether this legislation is beneficial for the UK. * Name has been changed to protect identity

2012

AllAboutLaw.co.uk

the Principle

Inside a trainee’s international secondment COMMERCIAL INSIGHT WORDS Kate Hogan

Kate Hogan is a trainee solicitor at Slaughter and May, currently on secondment to Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, in New York’s glamorous Manhattan. An international secondment is an exciting opportunity to learn about law in a different jurisdiction, build relationships with another firm, and challenge yourself in a new environment. Some deals I worked on in London involved US clients or law aspects so I thought it would be invaluable to gain US corporate law experience and to understand how deals work there. I also wanted to work with US clients and lawyers, and experience living and working in a different country – I’ve always wanted to live in Manhattan. I was very excited and eager to begin when I arrived in NYC. I was a bit nervous as there is no concept of “trainee” in

US firms and I didn’t know the type of work I would be doing. But everyone in the firm is really friendly and helpful, and the work is mainly similar to that of a fourth seat trainee. The deal teams are small and junior lawyers are really involved in the transactions. The training and resources here are excellent and I was exposed to interesting US corporate work straight away. I had a great first week with a very helpful induction and met lots of partners and associates that I’d be working with. I was staffed on an interesting public M&A deal that week, so immediately started working on US law matters. And my office has a great view of the Manhattan skyline! The firm organised a trip to its Washington office and a tour of DC for all the lawyers on international secondment – it was a great way to see another city and meet the others on secondment. The best parts of working in a different jurisdiction are learning about the law here, understanding deals from a US perspective, working with top US lawyers and clients, and meeting new and interesting people. I love the challenge of settling into a new environment and learning about the culture at a different law firm. The firm also involves me on exciting deals so I’m exposed to a range of work and people. It’s fascinating being here in the middle of the presidential race, seeing campaigns and politics in the US. NYC is such an exciting city to live and work in – there is always something to do. From cycling around Brooklyn or Central Park, walking the High Line, visiting museums and

shows, going to sports games, enjoying the rooftop views or eating at fantastic restaurants. The city attracts people from all over the world and I’ve already made great new friends here. Slaughter and May provides a great deal of support to trainees on secondment. It organises and pays for accommodation, flights and visas, and helps with the moving costs. The firm is in regular contact to make sure all is going well in work and in general, and is always there if needed: if I’m asked to provide UK law advice, for example, I can contact the London team to provide assistance where required. The biggest advantage of an international secondment is gaining practical experience of law in another jurisdiction. In the legal market, it’s becoming increasingly important to have international experience and to understand law in different jurisdictions. Having US corporate law experience will be beneficial in the future when I deal with US clients or transactions with a US element. I’ve built strong relationships with US lawyers which will also be helpful. I couldn’t recommend an international secondment more. It’s a great opportunity to develop professionally and personally, and to discover a new city. It’s been the highlight of my legal career to date – an exciting way to get practical legal experience in another jurisdiction, understand its legal and business culture, and build relationships with lawyers in another firm. Many jurisdictions do not have the “trainee” concept, so it is also a great way to take on more responsibility.

How many lawyers do you see? At Slaughter and May we train each of our lawyers to be a multi‑specialist, equipped to advise on a broad range of legal matters that at other firms would be handled by a number of different lawyers. We don’t pigeonhole our people – we think that the broader the training and experience, the better the lawyer.

Michael, a lawyer in one of our Corporate groups

Our lawyers have a varied and interesting workload and ample opportunities to develop close relationships with clients and become their trusted advisers.

AllAboutLaw.co.uk

We have built a reputation for delivering innovative solutions to difficult problems. This has been earned because each of our lawyers advises on broad legal areas, combining experience gained on one type of transaction to solve problems in another. We welcome applicants from all academic disciplines who achieve strong 2:1 results or the equivalent. To find out more, you can apply for one of our Open Days, Work Experience Schemes or Workshops. For more information about a legal career with a difference, visit slaughterandmay/joinus

Issue Six

Interview with a litigation and disputes lawyer COMMERCIAL INSIGHT WORDS & PHOTO Richard Jeens

Richard Jeens is a Partner at Slaughter and May working in the dispute resolution team, advising on a broad range of international disputes and investigations. He told us the best parts of his job, the most memorable cases he’s worked on, and his advice to those of you wanting to pursue a similar path. Tell us about your role at Slaughter and May? I deal with a really wide range of clients, from large commercial organisations – FTSE 100 corporations or banks, for example – to regulators or governments. This makes it really interesting: our practice board helps clients do sensible business without having too many difficulties, while also helping governments and regulators implement policy. I advise clients on how to resolve their disputes and get the best out of contentious circumstances - I help them avoid problems, but then fix their problems if they do arise. Sometimes I get involved with a client thinking about doing a particular transaction, for example, and they want strategic input on things like how regulators might respond if they implement the transaction a particular way. Certain approaches might be more likely to result in litigation or investigation, but done in a different way the client can achieve the same commercial benefits without raising issues. The other major part of my work involves advising clients on how to deal with actual disputes – from enforcing contractual rights, to defending themselves against claims or handling regulators. Describe your career path to that role? I read History at university, and wasn’t sure what to do after that so I did placements at banks and management consultancies, then a summer placement here at Slaughter and May. I really enjoyed it, so I applied for a training contract and started as a trainee in 2005. I’ve been here ever since. I think Slaughter and May is great: we look after people, and there’s a lot to learn and do here – you’re

given real and interesting work from the outset. A lot of the people that started with me as trainees are now partners. What are the best parts of the job, and the more challenging aspects? The type of work we do as a firm tends to be the most significant or high-profile. That means you get attention from some really good people at the clients and other organisations we work with. Also, every job is different: you’ll work on a dispute about the way one company sells goods to another, and the next day you’ll be working on a fraud case, where people have been accused of very real wrongdoing. One kind of dispute can be very different to the next. A lot of the time the problems posed are technically and intellectually challenging, but you work through it with the wider team, including sharing the expertise of different people at the firm across the relevant subject areas. The sheer scale of some disputes can be pretty challenging, particularly some of the regulatory investigations – for example, the volume of documents that needs to be produced at short notice. I did a job a few years ago where we went through something like a million documents in two or three months. That was a challenge in terms of hard work, but also just in terms of the logistics and managing something that size. But it’s rewarding – confronting what appears at first to be an insurmountable problem, then finding our way to a solution for our clients. Tell us about a memorable case? Two cases I did last year really stand out. The first involved

defending Kroll Associates against claims by a Saudi real estate company and a Bahraini bank. It was a long running and extremely firmly contested case, with allegations around hacked data, stolen information, breaches of confidence, accounting fraud - as well as involving parallel contempt of court proceedings. It was a very difficult case to fight, not just due to the scale and complexity, but also because there was a lot of animosity amongst several of the people involved. The second was for Santander Totta, a Portuguese bank. Though hard fought, this was a much less “hostile” case, which involved very technical and complicated arguments around Portuguese and English law; working out how to present difficult Portuguese provisions of law in an English court and persuade an English judge that this is the right way to decide things. It was enormously interesting in an intellectual sense. With the Kroll case, it was all about getting to grips with the facts of the case, who was telling the truth and what happened; the Santander case involved really understanding the foreign provisions of law, why they applied and how to grapple with them. The contrast between the cases really shows why this job is fun. What advice would you give someone wanting to pursue a career like yours? You should be open to different ways of achieving a good outcome; be able to see that getting from A to B won’t necessarily be in a straight line – and recognise that finding the right outcome for your client is not just about identifying the right way, but identifying the best destination.

One Bunhill Row, London, EC1Y 8YY www.slaughterandmay.com Key statistics Training contract places: Approx 80 No of seats abroad: Approx 30 Required degree grade: Strong 2:1 Training contract deadline: 29 July 2016

Overseas offices: Brussels, Beijing and Hong Kong, plus ‘Best Friend’ firms in all the major jurisdictions First year salary: £41,000 Second year salary: £46,000 Post-qualification salary: £70,000

AllAboutLaw.co.uk

the Principle

The EU & Turkey: a raw deal for refugees? COMMERCIAL INSIGHT WORDS Emma Finamore PHOTO Zoe Gardner/Asylum Aid

The Syrian refugee crisis has gone from bad to worse in recent years, as more people are forced to flee their homes in search for safety in Europe. Emma Finamore looks at a new controversial deal that hopes to bring order to chaos.

‘one in, one out’ rule is straightforward enough when you’re queuing outside a busy club or bar, but it takes on an entirely different nature when applied to desperate refugees waiting to access a continent. On 18 March the European Union struck an agreement with Turkey in an attempt to bring order to an increasingly chaotic and desperate situation. The refugee crisis in Europe dramatically escalated in 2015: the International Organisation for Migration estimates more than 1,011,700 migrants arrived by sea in 2015, and almost 34,900 by land, compared with 280,000 arrivals by land and sea for the whole of 2014. This figure does not include those who arrived undetected. Under the deal, one Syrian refugee on the Greek islands (where the bulk of refugees travelling by sea are arriving, over 102,500 people this year alone) will be returned to Turkey. In exchange for each returnee, a Syrian asylum seeker already in

Turkey will be found a home in Europe. The EU and Turkey also agreed that as of 20 March, all new ‘irregular’ migrants – those entering a country without legal permission to do so – crossing from Turkey to the Greek islands will be returned to Turkey. Turkey will also take any necessary measures to prevent new sea or land routes for irregular migration opening between Turkey and Europe. Once those crossings from Turkey are substantially reduced, a Voluntary Humanitarian Admission Scheme will be activated, and the EU will speed up the distribution of €3 billion to refugee facilities in Turkey. Turkey’s promise to take back refugees and economic migrants from Europe comes at a cost: the loosening of visa restrictions for 75 million Turkish citizens within Europe’s 26-member border-free travel zone by the end of June, instead of October as originally planned. Turkey also wants to restart EU membership talks in five policy

AllAboutLaw.co.uk

areas, not just the two already offered. The EU says the Turkey deal targets people smugglers and removes the incentive to seek irregular routes to the EU, in full accordance with EU and international law. But many critics argue otherwise, saying it directly contravenes law that has been in place since the 1950s. Zoe Gardner, communications officer at Asylum Aid – an organisation providing legal representation for people seeking asylum in the UK – is one of those critics. “The 1951 convention explicitly states that refugees should not be penalised for the irregular or undocumented journeys that they may be forced to make in order to find protection,” she tells The Principle. “This deal clearly does exactly that, in forcing back refugees who come through methods other than resettlement and placing them at the ‘back of the queue’ in terms of any future solution.” For Gardner, there are even more important issues with the

Issue Six

Serbia & Cossovo

65,763

Germany

49,368

Hungary

46,195

Sweden

14,451

Austria

9,945

Netherlands Bulgaria Belgium Spain Denmark UK

6,073 Opposite Zoe Gardner volunteering with Afghan refugees on the Greek island of Lesbos.

4,575 3,565 3,160

Left (graph) Asylum applications lodged by Syrians made in 2015 (source: UNHCR).

3,095 1,314

plan, involving Turkey – the place refugees will be sent back to. “The deal may effectively deny refugee protection – guaranteed under the 1951 Convention – to people with a well-founded fear of persecution in their country of origin,” she says. “In returning asylum seekers to Turkey, a country which does not fully implement the 1951 Convention, we are putting them at risk of ‘chain-refoulement’ – the prohibited forced return of refugees to a country where they would be at risk. It is our legal responsibility under the Convention to give a full and fair individual assessment of any asylum application, so sending people back because of arbitrary factors such as their nationality could well be illegal.” The European Commission states on its website that: “There will be individual interviews, individual assessments and rights of appeal. There will be no blanket and no automatic returns of asylum seekers.” But this is not enough to reassure critics that people will be treated in line with the law. They say refugees should also not be returned to countries that are unable to guarantee their rights to countries that, according to human rights watchdogs, include Turkey. Again, the European Commission has an answer: “Only asylum seekers that will be protected in accordance with the relevant international standards and in respect of the principle of non-refoulement will be returned to Turkey. “All applications need to be treated individually and due account must be paid to the situation of vulnerable groups, in particular unaccompanied minors for whom all decisions must be in their best interests. Moreover, specific attention should be given also to persons who have members of their close family in other Member States and for whom the Dublin rules should be applied. All applicants will also be able to appeal their decision.” The Dublin Regulation is an EU law that determines the EU Member State responsible for asylum applicants seeking international protection under the Geneva Convention and the EU Qualification Directive. The country in which someone first applies for asylum is responsible for accepting or rejecting them, and the seeker cannot restart the process in another jurisdiction. So, what are the criteria by which authorities in Greece will assess asylum applications? There are two legal possibilities that could be envisaged for declaring them inadmissible, in relation to Turkey: ‘First country of asylum’ (Article 35 of the Asylum Procedures Directive), where the person has been already

recognised as a refugee in that country or otherwise enjoys sufficient protection there; or ‘safe third country’ (Article 38 of the Asylum Procedures Directive), where the person has not already received protection in the third country but the third country can guarantee protection to the readmitted person. When applying the ‘safe third country’ concept, any return decision is suspended automatically while the appeal is being

“The 1951 convention explicitly states that refugees should not be penalised for the irregular or undocumented journeys that they may be forced to make in order to find protection.” treated; when applying the ‘first country of asylum’ concept, there is a possibility to make a request to suspend the transfer whilst the appeal is being treated. All these decisions take time, and refugees need somewhere to live while their applications are processed, or even while they are waiting to be taken back to Turkey; and these sites are the object of further controversy. “What is truly disgraceful is that after all of the hysteria and attention, and the high-level meetings and money thrown at hashing out this deal with Turkey; the EU states have pretty much ignored the issue of the people who are already here, camped out in unacceptable conditions at Calais or Idomeni, and unable to access basic

AllAboutLaw.co.uk

health and sanitation, let alone fair and efficient asylum procedures,” says Gardner. “This deal utterly fails to address the real problem: that of adequately managing and receiving in a humane way the refugees who are here and who will continue to make it to our shores.” Other criticisms levelled at the deal regard its effectiveness, or lack of, and the fact that it focuses on Syrian refugees – who make up only a proportion of those trying to make new lives in Europe. Afghans, Pakistanis, and other nationalities not deemed entitled to European protection could be sent back to Turkey under another aspect of the deal. But other groups, such as Iraqis, may have a better chance of being granted asylum in Europe. Also, by focusing only on Syrians, the deal implies they deserve better treatment than people fleeing other warzones and political situations – Afghans and Iraqis, for example – that have not received the same level of media attention as Syria. The first boats carrying migrants being deported from Greece arrived in Turkey in early April, and 130 of those 202 people were from Pakistan. There were 42 migrants from Afghanistan and others from Iran, Sri Lanka and Morocco, as well as several other countries. 32 Syrians were the first ‘exchanged’ refugees to arrive in Germany from Turkey. “States are entitled to decide on what basis they will resettle refugees to their territory. As such, the ‘one in, one out’ element of the deal is not illegal,” says Gardner. “It is, however, grossly inhumane, as it requires one refugee to risk their life at sea in order for another refugee’s life to be saved. It is also unlikely to be effective given the necessity for member states to voluntarily offer up resettlement places for those exchanged.” For Gardner, regardless of what she sees as the inhumanity of the deal, it simply will not have the desired effect. “It’s obvious that a Syrian refugee family that has been returned to Turkey and told that they will now go to the ‘back of the queue’ for resettlement, is likely to consider it a better option to put their savings and their lives in the hands of smugglers, to take them to Egypt or to Libya to try again from there,” she says. “Those sea routes are more deadly than the crossing from Turkey to Greece, so this deal is ultimately likely to result in more deaths at sea, not fewer. Until we have decently functioning asylum systems in every EU country and a fair and sustainable method of sharing responsibility between member states, we will still have a refugee crisis.”

the Principle

Junior doctors & jurisdictional challenges COMMERCIAL INSIGHT WORDS Jack J Collins PHOTO Jack J Collins

With negotiations on the junior doctors’ contract having reached a state of complete deadlock, new legal challenges have been raised against the health secretary, Jeremy Hunt. Jack J Collins explores what these jurisdictional challenges entail, and if they will provide closure.

Above A banner on the gates of Guy’s Hospital in London Bridge during the February strike action.

wo legal challenges have been raised against the health secretary, Jeremy Hunt, and the Department of Health, as the junior doctors’ contract row shifts its battleground from the streets to the courts. The British Medical Association (BMA) first launched a judicial review, questioning whether Hunt’s decision to force the new contract on all junior doctors in England was legal. Following this, a second group named Justice for Health, comprising five junior doctors, claimed Hunt has broken the law by imposing the contract on doctors when he simply did not have the power to do so. They claim that Hunt’s actions are for political purposes only, and that he is attempting to gain an unlawful amount of control over the health service. The BMA challenge was announced by Dr Johann Malawana, the chair of the Junior Doctors Committee, who stated that the BMA had issued proceedings to the Department of Health, challenging the legality of the Health Secretary’s actions, due to the fact that “the government failed to give proper consideration to the equalities impact this contract could have on junior doctors”. Junior doctors have also highlighted that the contract appears to be discriminatory towards women – as it negatively affects those who take time off to have children, or anyone that works part-time. However, the Department of Health released their own equality analysis of the new contract, stating: “While there are features of the new contract that impact disproportionately on women, of which some we expect to be advantageous and others disadvantageous, we do not consider that this would amount to indirect discrimination as the impacts can be comfortably justified.” The Justice for Health challenge differs slightly, as it claims Hunt, despite his ministerial role, is simply not entitled to single

AllAboutLaw.co.uk

handedly change a contract which will directly impact 45,000 doctors. They insist that hospital trusts will not be compelled to accept the terms or to enforce the contract on their staff. Their challenging document, which was 24 pages long, gave Hunt five days to respond. Upon a lack of response, they are now looking for a full review by the judicial high court into the legality of his announcement of the imposition of the new contract, which was made in Parliament in February following a final breakdown in talks between the Department of Health and the BMA. In a statement made to the Guardian, Saimo Chahal QC, of the solicitors firm Bindmans who are representing the Justice for Health group, said that Hunt had acted unlawfully. The statement asked the health secretary to “show us what legal authority he was acting under”, as well as advising him that the firm will be “seeking orders quashing any decisions which have legal consequences”. Chahal added that because of the way in which the NHS is structured, “the secretary of state is limited to a strategic, hands-off role, which is mediated through the mandate to NHS England”, which means that he is not permitted to enforce decisions regarding “what should be in an individual junior doctor’s contract”. The two jurisdictional disputes are an escalation of the row that has until this point been dominated by unresolved discussion and industrial action, but the fact that a legal course is now being pursued, especially directly regarding the illegality of Hunt’s actions, adds a whole new dimension of animosity to the debate. The all-out strikes at the end of April have added further fuel to the fire, but with no end in sight and a deadlock reached by the parties of both sides, perhaps the legal challenges will provide the outcome that this situation so desperately needs.

Issue Six

COMMERCIAL INSIGHT WORDS Jack J Collins

A coalition of high-end legal figures are calling for the government to change the way it handles legal aid. Jack J Collins looks at the act they want to repeal, and what is needed to make sure that legal aid is accessible to those that need it most.

t the beginning of April a letter was published by the Guardian, wherein a coalition of some of the most prominent figures in the legal world called on the government to begin a full review into the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders (LASPO) Act of 2013. The group, which includes the chair of the Bar Council and the president of the Law Society, believe that the legal aid reforms that were introduced in the act have severely disadvantaged the ability of vulnerable people to access justice and legal aid. They quote the report of the justice select committee,

Repeal LASPO? which stated that the cuts have had a negative effect on access to justice for those most in need of legal aid. As such, they claim, the number of people who have no option but to represent themselves in court has risen drastically, something they claim is an unfair system favouring the wealthy and challenging the very principle of legal aid. Whilst the government has repeatedly said that it is going to carry out a review assessing the impact of the reform, the group have stated that it is not happening fast enough and they call on ministers to address the issue at the earliest given opportunity. They concluded with the statement that “it is vital for government to ensure nobody is denied access to justice based on their ability to pay”. On the back of this, a second letter was published, this time from Tom McNally, the Minister of State for Justice 2010 – 2013, lending his support to the calls and stressing that the review should be undertaken by a joint committee of both houses of parliament, where the big questions could be asked, such as: how big a budget should be given to legal aid? Is there a way of reaching a cross-party consensus on the matter for the common good? McNally highlights the Legal Aid and Advice Act of 1949, which was introduced by the Labour government of Clement Attlee, and was described by Baron Jeremy Beecham as “one of the great pillars of the post war welfare state”, and claims that another who played a huge part in the creation of the 1949 Act, Jeremy Hutchinson QC, has stated that they were trying, at the time, to create a “national health service for the law”. Now, as then, that is an honourable aspiration, but with

chieve your chieve your chieve your potential

austerity measures in place in Britain, and the NHS itself becoming the victim of ever-tightening purse strings, it would have to be a strong voice that would be able to make sure that the review achieved what it was looking for and set up legislation to make sure that legal aid is readily available to everyone. The legal coalition has gained a chorus of assenting voices to their cause, which can only be a good thing, but the truth of the matter is that there will need to be agreement in both the Houses of Commons and Lords, across the benches, if there is to be demonstrable change on the matter of legal aid within the year. Further to this, the residence test that the government implemented with the LASPO Act is being challenged at a supreme court. The Public Law Project has brought the case to trial, insisting that it is discriminatory to refuse legal aid to a human simply because they have lived the the UK for less than 12 months. This is not the first time the residency issue has caused umbrage, with an original high court decision that the law was too discriminatory being overturned by the court of appeal in November. The Ministry of Justice has stated a belief that the residence test is a fair and appropriate measure, but the Supreme Court has moved the case forward so that a decision can be made prior to the planned introduction of the test this summer. It is clear that legal aid and access to justice remain some of the most controversial issues of the modern day legal world, and the LASPO Act remains extremely divisive. The coalition’s call for reform will eventually be too loud for the government to ignore, but until that tipping point, the specific laws that the Act has put in place will remain hotly contested on all fronts.

FREE ONLINE REVISION RESOURCES AVAILABLE AT WWW.OUP.COM/LAWREVISION

Achieve your potential potential potential Revision and study guides Revision study guides from the and No. 1 legal Revision study from the and No. 1 legalguides education publisher, with revision and study guides from from the sense. No. 1 legal education publisher, it makes the No. 1 legal education publisher publisher, iteducation makes sense. it makes sense.knowledge consolidate consolidate knowledge focus revision consolidate focus revisionknowledge maximise potential consolidate knowledge focus revision maximise potential focus revision maximise potential maximise potential

Great offers available

AllAboutLaw.co.uk

the Principle

Twitter, the NFL & broadcasting rights COMMERCIAL INSIGHT WORDS Jack J Collins PHOTO Teddy Wade

Right NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, who stated that Twitter “is the right partner for the NFL”.

Twitter was announced as the official broadcasting partner of the NFL this month, allowing the platform to stream 10 Thursday night matches this season. Jack J Collins examines why the deal came about and what it means for the future of broadcasting on social media.

arlier this year, Twitter secured its first broadcasting deal, obtaining the rights to broadcast 10 Thursday night National Football League (NFL) games during the 2016 season, a deal which apparently cost the social media service around $10 million. The deal, which was done following a bidding war against fellow technology companies, has come as a bit of a surprise. Amazon and Yahoo were direct competition, and with Amazon’s history of paying vast amounts for the rights to TV shows (as in the case of Messrs. Clarkson, Hammond and May). But despite rivals bidding higher amounts, Twitter

was determined by the NFL directors to be the platform that would expand the franchise most. NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell said: “Twitter is where live events unfold and is the right partner for the NFL as we take the latest step in serving fans around the world live NFL football. “There is a massive amount of NFL-related conversation happening on Twitter during our games and tapping into that audience, in addition to our viewers on broadcast and cable, will ensure Thursday Night Football is seen on an unprecedented number of platforms this season.” One of the most pertinent reasons for the deal is said to be Twitter’s global reach. The NFL is in the middle of a drive to make the game more widely known around the globe, as displayed in their initiative to host two games a year at Wembley, an attempt to generate enough interest that a UK NFL team would become a distinct possibility. When an NFL game, Jacksonville Jaguars against the Buffalo Bills, was distributed online for free last year in a groundbreaking partnership with Yahoo, 33% of streams came from locations outside the US, across 185 different countries. In a time where the international reputation of the game is growing rapidly, Twitter has been seen as the best vehicle to harness that across the world. Jack Dorsey, the Twitter CEO, was quoted as saying that the deal “is about transforming the fan experience with football. People watch NFL games with Twitter today. Now they’ll be able to watch right on Twitter Thursday nights”. The existing partnership between Twitter and the NFL, signed before last season where the two parties agreed to distribute highlights, interviews and other content via the

AllAboutLaw.co.uk

social media service, has almost certainly played a role in how Twitter beat off the other competition, as well as the influence of Twitter’s Chief Financial Officer, Anthony Noto. Noto joined Twitter in 2014, but prior to 2010 he was the CFO of the NFL, and his influence is said to be a key factor in the growing partnership between the two brands. He has gone on to highlight that the deal is the first in a growing entertainment aspect of Twitter, expanding its content to improve the user experience. “This is one element of a much broader strategy to provide the next generation of real-time content,” Noto was quoted as saying. The NFL has explicitly stated that it is using this opportunity to experiment with a new method of streaming that appeals to an ever-expanding audience that no longer uses traditional TV subscriptions. It has been mooted that Twitter will set up a specific service for their live streams which will included a feed of relevant tweets, allowing users to discuss events and decisions in real time. “We did not take the highest bidder on the table,” the NFL’s vice president of media, Brian Rolapp, stated of the deal they had struck. “The platform is built around live events already. We want to see how they use the unique platform, and syndicated tweets all over the Internet is going to be interesting.” Whilst streaming is always developing, the deal is a big step forward for the idea of social media becoming a broadcasting method widely used by many people and accepted by big franchises such as the NFL. With Noto’s assertions that this is simply the start of streaming services on Twitter, it remains to be seen just how big a part of the social media service that broadcasting could become.

Issue Six

How to impress on a vacation scheme

Left You’ll be expected to make yourself heard - whether you’re working one-to-one, or in the boardroom.

ADVICE WORDS Jack J Collins PHOTO Benjamin Child

o you’ve been accepted onto your vacation scheme? Congratulations – you’ve gone a long way to getting your foot in the door in the legal industry and at your chosen firm. Vacation schemes give you the opportunity to impress the people you need to be impressing; it’s vital to remember that many law firms recruit trainees from their vacation scheme intake, so you need to be on top form from the first moment and remember that people are going to be assessing you from the second you walk in the door. Whilst vacation schemes offer a variety of different things, from workshops and shadowing opportunities to social events after work, remember to have your wits about you at all times – staying switched on is the key element to impressing the people around you. A lot of the pointers we’re about to give you are based on purely using a little common sense, but if you avoid the pitfalls and keep these in mind, you’ll be well on your way to becoming a trainee.

DO YOUR RESEARCH

Jack J Collins takes a look at the ways you can impress and stand out on your vacation scheme, as well as pointing out some potential pitfalls that you’d do well to avoid.

It’s a very simple one, but you’d be surprised at the amount of students who simply forget to do their homework on the firm they’re going into. Knowing a little bit about the firm will allow you to ask relevant questions with some depth in them, to understand what it is you’re doing in the larger scheme of the company, and will demonstrate your enthusiasm and initiative to the people assessing you. You don’t need to know the full history of the company off the top of your head, but have an awareness of what projects they’re covering and the aspects of the company you’re interested in, so you can discuss them.

GET INVOLVED There’s no point being there if you’re going to lurk in the shadows – refusing to speak, help out or get stuck in - because no-one is going to hire a trainee that doesn’t want to be part of the company or show any enthusiasm for the profession. You don’t have to suddenly be the star of the show if you’re more of an introverted character, but you should be willing to take on tasks and explore the profession more fully to show that you

AllAboutLaw.co.uk

want to be a part of the team, as well as to grow and learn.

BACK YOURSELF, BUT LOSE THE ARROGANCE Any firm will be delighted to see a student that can hold their own and have demonstrable knowledge of the legal sphere, but they also don’t need people that think they know it all and therefore won’t listen and learn. Answer questions when it’s appropriate, try and showcase your knowledge and learning, but when the time comes to hear from those who’ve already been there and done that, take what they’re saying on board – you will reap the rewards.

KEEP IT PROFESSIONAL It’s not rocket science to work out that you probably should remain professional in all aspects of your vacation scheme – this applies firstly in that you should remain composed, polite and respectful at all times, no matter what you’re doing; but perhaps more importantly, remember where you are and what you’re doing when it comes to social events. The horror stories are numerous – trainees ending up slurring and chanting their university songs, or trying it on with the graduate recruitment managers, or falling asleep at the bar and having to be dropped home by their boss. It’s just not worth it – keep things civil and whilst you should be enjoying yourself, just be more aware than usual of your surroundings and how many you’ve had.

SQUEEZE OUT EVERY LAST DROP To get the most out of your scheme, you should be trying to take in absolutely everything within such a short period of time. Interaction with those around you, trying new things, and putting yourself out of your comfort zone will all demonstrate how confident and comfortable you are within a working environment, and will help those assessing you to see you as a future member of the team, integral to the company’s workings. Enjoy yourself, be polite, and show you’re willing to learn – and the chances are that the firm will be only too glad to take you on.

the Principle

Training contracts: where should you go? ADVICE WORDS Emma Finamore

Your choice of training contract shouldn’t just be based on the firm, but the city it’s in. You’ll be there for two years (and maybe longer) so factors like rent and nightlife should be taken into account. Here’s our breakdown of major UK cities and their vital statistics, along with the firms you’ll find there. £800

£700

£600

£500

£400

Right Average weekly earnings Below right Average monthly rent Below Looking for a good night out? These are the cities best ranked for nightlife

£300 £200

£100

rg bu in

h ut

e Ab

o sg

l to

e st

le st

r ve

iff

c an

rd Ca

gh in

ca ew

ym Pl

lfa

effi Sh

£3000

£2500

Liverpool

£2000

£1500

Manchester

£1000

£500

Lo n

o nd

O h

g ur nb

i Ed

te es

m ha

iff

to is

an M

AllAboutLaw.co.uk

e Ex

ca ew N

effi

lfa

o sg

London

Issue Six MANCHESTER Addleshaw Goddard BLM Law Browne Jacobson DLA Piper DWF Fieldfisher Freshfields Hill Dickinson Irwin Mitchell Mills & Reeve Nabarro Pinsent Masons Shoosmiths Squire Patton Boggs TLT Trowers & Hamlins Pinsent Masons TLT

ABERDEEN Bond Dickinson CMS Pinsent Masons

EDINBURGH BLM Law DLA Piper DWF Pinsent Masons Shoosmiths TLT

LONDON

GLASGOW BLM Law DWF Irwin Mitchell Pinsent Masons TLT

NEWCASTLE Bond Dickinson DWF Irwin Mitchell King & Wood Mallesons

BELFAST Allen & Overy Baker & McKenzie BLM Law Herbert Smith Freehills Pinsent Masons TLT

LEEDS Addleshaw Goddard BLM Law Bond Dickinson DLA Piper DWF Irwin Mitchell Mills & Reeve Pinsent Masons Squire Patton Boggs

SHEFFIELD

BIRMINGHAM

BRISTOL Ashfords BLM Law Bond Dickinson Burges Salmon DWF Foot Anstey Herbert Smith Freehills Hewlett-Packard Enterprise Irwin Mitchell Michelmores Osborne Clarke RPC Simmons & Simmons TLT Veale Wasbrough Vizards

BLM Law Browne Jacobson DLA Piper DWF Irwin Mitchell Mills & Reeve Pinsent Masons Shoosmiths Squire Patton Boggs Trowers & Hamlins Veale Wasbrough Vizards Wragge & Co

DLA Piper Hill Dickinson Irwin Mitchell Nabarro

LIVERPOOL

CAMBRIDGE

BLM Law DLA Piper DWF Hill Dickinson

Irwin Mitchell Mills & Reeve Pennington Manches Taylor Wessing

OXFORD Lewis Silkin Pennington Manches

CARDIFF BLM Law Lewis Silkin

EXETER Ashfords Browne Jacobson Foot Anstey Michelmores Trowers & Hamlins

SOUTHAMPTON PLYMOUTH Ashfords Bond Dickinson Foot Anstey

AllAboutLaw.co.uk

BLM Law Bond Dickinson Irwin Mitchell Shoosmiths

Accutrainee Addleshaw Goddard Akin Gump Allen & Overy Ashfords Ashurst Baker & McKenzie Bird & Bird BLM Law BLP Bond Dickinson Bristows Browne Jacobson Burges Salmon Cleary Gottlieb Clifford Chance Dechert Dentons DLA Piper DWF Farrer & Co Fieldfisher Foot Anstey Freshfields Herbert Smith Freehills Hewlett-Packard Enterprise HFW Hill Dickinson Hogan Lovells Ince & Co Irwin Mitchell King & Wood Mallesons Latham & Watkins Lewis Silkin Macfarlanes Mayer Brown Michelmores Mills & Reeve Nabarro Norton Rose Fulbright Oâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Melveny & Myers Olswang Orrick Osborne Clarke Pennington Manches Pinsent Masons Reed Smith Rosenblatt RPC Shearman & Sterling Shoosmiths Sidley Austin Simmons & Simmons Skadden Arps Slaughter and May Squire Patton Boggs Taylor Wessing Thomas Eggar TLT Trowers & Hamlins Veale Wasbrough Vizards Weil Withers Worldwide White & Case Wragge & Co

Smriti, a lawyer in our Dispute Resolution group

How many lawyers do you see? At Slaughter and May we train each of our lawyers to be a multi-specialist, equipped to advise on a broad range of legal matters that at other firms would be handled by a number of different lawyers. We donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t pigeonhole our people â&#x20AC;&#x201C; we think that the broader the training and experience, the better the lawyer. Our lawyers have a varied and interesting workload and ample opportunities to develop close relationships with clients and become their trusted advisers.