The Principle - Issue 4 by AllAboutGroup

SPONSORED BY

Principle the

COMMERCIAL INSIGHTS & FUNDAMENTAL ADVICE

26TH NOVEMBER 2015 ISSUE FOUR ALLABOUTLAW.CO.UK

FOR ASPIRING LAWYERS

Chinese state visit

A sexist boys’club?

Essential advice

Continued on page 4

Continued on page 6

Continued on page 18

The visit of President Xi Jinping has been described as a ‘milestone’ occasion by the Queen, but what are the real results of the state visit to the UK by the Chinese Premier, and is this really the beginning of a ‘golden age’ for Anglo-Chinese relations?

After a string of scandals – barrister Charlotte Proudman outing a solicter over his inappropriate LinkedIn comments, and a report exposing shocking treatment of women at the Bar – we take a look at the problems faced by women pursuing this career path.

Doping scandal rocks athletics A

n increased focus on the use of performance enhancing drugs throughout the world of athletics was compounded this month by a leak from a whistleblower at the International Association of Athletic Federations. The leak claimed that around a third of Olympic and World Championship medals, which included more than 50 golds, had been won by athletes who had previously recorded blood test results that were abnormal, raising suspicions of doping being more prevalent within the sport than had previously been thought. Further to this, the leak shows that more than 800 athletes, which equates to nearly one in seven of those named within the documents, had recorded results which were suggestive

of doping, which is a huge concern for both the reputation of the sport and for those committed to ensuring standards of fairness. Those high up in the sport have stated that they were extremely alarmed by the claims, and that the documents would be referred to the independent commission set up in December to combat doping in athletics. The President of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), Craig Reedie, has said: “WADA is very disturbed by these new allegations that have been raised by ARD, which will, once again, shake the foundation of clean athletes

Continued on page 2

AllAboutLaw.co.uk

We guide you through the competitive world of vacation scheme interviews and assessment centres, offering practical advice on everything from what to do at university to increase your chances of success, to making that Saturday job relevant to a top law firm, and getting to grips with commercial awareness.

With a seemingly unending chain of doping scandals in the athletics world, Jack J Collins examines the latest revelations, and the repercussions for Russia after being named the “blood-testing epicentre of the world” in a report by an independent commission about suspicious results.

the Principle

A note from the editors

Welcome to the fourth 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 great collection of features grappling with topical issues in the world of law – providing you with a broad context for your studies and hopefully inspiring some debate. We look at everything from the recent athletics doping scandal in the run up to the Rio Olympic Games in 2016, issues of sexism in the law industry and the proposed Human Rights Act repeal, to Anglo-Chinese relations and the recent ‘English votes for English laws’ proposals. As well as all this, we’ve included advice pieces to equip you with the essentials for your career journey: tips for interviews and assessment centres, insider knowledge from Slaughter and May, and an exclusive ‘Day in the Life’ feature, with the essential low-down on what it’s really like to train at a top international law firm. The Principle wouldn’t be anything without our contributors and the support of our sponsor, Freshfields. We want to say a huge thank you to everyone who makes this newspaper possible. Until next time: good luck, enjoy, and see you in 2016!

Emma Finamore and Jack J Collins Editors, AllAboutLaw.co.uk

With thanks to our sponsor:

Scandal: the first real test of Coe’s presidency COMMERCIAL INSIGHT WORDS Jack J Collins PHOTO Tab59, DohaStadiumPlusQuatar, Zehnfinger

Continued from page 1

worldwide.” He went on to state: “The allegations require swift and close scrutiny to determine whether there have in fact been breaches under the world anti-doping code and, if so, what actions are required to be taken.” This leak comes as a further blow to the sport in a week where the independent commission curated by WADA has produced a report ruling that the doping process in Russia has been systematically engineered to provide athletes with an unfair advantage. Dick Pound, who headed the independent commission, has stated that this can be classified as “state sponsored doping”. The report also goes so far as to suggest that the Russian Athletics Team “sabotaged” the London 2012 Olympic Games, and as such, has recommended that Russia should be given a national ban from competitions, which would rule them out of the Rio 2016 Games, as well as naming five athletes and five coaches who they feel should be given lifetime bans for their participation in the scandal. The problems in Russia run deeper than just its athletes, which is why the call for a national sanction is in place. In fact, the report has recommended that WADA removes its accreditation from the doping laboratory in Moscow, and that its director, Grigory Rodchenko, is permanently removed on account of taking bribes, purposefully destroying selected samples and intentionally perverting justice. Further to this, there is talk of state involvement higher up, as the Russian Security Service, the FSB, are accused of being present at both the Moscow and Sochi laboratories, where they were the enablers of a system where intimidation was used to allow state interference with the operations of the laboratory. In fact, Russian athletes were given notice of tests well in advance, the evidence of missed tests was destroyed and doping control officers were “bullied” into complying with the system that was in place.

AllAboutLaw.co.uk

This is the latest bout of harmful allegations that have come to light following the UNESCO International Convention against Doping in Sport that occurred at the end of October, which was based around the education of young athletes about the abuse of substances within the profession and how it can negatively affect both their careers and their bodies in later life. Over 250 delegates from national governments and sporting authority bodies convened to discuss the challenges ahead and the solutions that can be offered, over the course of the twoday conference. With the latest revelations coming to light, it is becoming increasingly clear that there is still a huge amount of work to be done. Irina Bokova, the Director General of UNESCO, stated that there was a belief among delegates that tackling the root of the problem was a better solution than trying to control it later on,

Issue Four

claiming that the only possible way to fight doping is through education”. With WADA and the International Olympic Committee both present, and the Convention based around the World Anti-Doping Code, which is supposed to ensure that states work together in common practice to attempt to apply a level playing field, it is thought that Russia’s position looks more tenuous in the wake of these events, and that a national ban is being considered. In addition to this, there has been a spate of high-profile investigations and arrests in relation to the cover up of doping offenses. One of the most pre-eminent of those under investigation is Former International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) president, Lamine Diack, who is also an honorary member of the International Olympic Committee. Diack is under investigation in France, having been accused of taking bribes from Russian officials in order to hide positive doping tests, and further to this, it has been suggested that he is involved in corruption and money laundering within the sport. His legal advisor, Habib Cisse, is also under suspicion, and the former director of the IAAF anti-doping department, Gabriel Dolle, has been arrested. This comes after a French police investigative force raided the Monaco headquarters of the IAAF to carry out interviews and to seize documentation that might be needed further along the investigation. The IAAF released a statement that read: “The IAAF confirms that, emanating from separate ongoing investigations by the World Anti-Doping Association’s independent commission and the IAAF’s own independent Ethics Commission into allegations surrounding its anti-doping rules and regulations, a French police investigation has now commenced. The IAAF is fully cooperating with all investigations as it has been from the beginning of the process.” The investigation comes four years after Diack was issued a warning by the International Olympic Committee for accepting payments from the marketing company ISL in 1993. Diack claimed that the payments were made by his friend Jean-Marie Webber, company executive, as a gift because his house in Senegal had been burned down by a political mob. At the time, Diack was a vice president of the IAAF, and was responsible for dealing with the ISL over marketing contracts.

Lord Sebastian Coe, who took over the presidency in August, has announced that he is creating a new integrity unit in order to tackle the crisis of both doping and the bribery surrounding it, which threatens to completely dismantle the sport as a well-respected and fair one. He also recently visited Russia as president, stating that he had expressed his position on the doping issue as “uncompromising”, and emphasising the importance in rebuilding trust within the sport by eradicating performance enhancing drugs. The latest revelations, therefore, will pose a huge challenge in where he draws the line and if national sanctions will be imposed. Regarding the findings of the report about Russian involvement in doping, he promised to move quickly on the recommendations offered by the commission, telling BBC Sport: “I want to see a sport that is responsible and transparent and accountable and I will do anything it takes to achieve that. But this will not be a swift road, this will be tough.” More leading figures within the sport took to Twitter to express their concerns and comment on the findings. Paula Radcliffe stated that she had “suspected some of this for years but way worse than imagined. Athletics needs to take strong action and move quickly forward in right direction”. Olympic Gold Medallist Greg Rutherford, claimed that many athletes “in recent times have damaged the sport even beyond repair”, adding that he hoped that audiences and aspiring children could look past the dishonesty and the lies. The UK Anti-Doping institution spoke on behalf of its athletes, in a statement that said: “The Independent Commission’s findings highlight that the international playing field has not been level for our clean British athletes competing on the global stage. Today’s findings will go some way to levelling that playing field for our athletes, and the whistle-blowers and media should be applauded for bringing these issues to WADA’s attention.” It is unclear what the exact repercussions will be for Russia and for those implicated in the report, but athletics is at a low ebb and as more evidence comes to light, the integrity of the sport looks like it is disintegrating. Coe’s team has a huge task on its hands in attempting to bring this under control and start to rebuild the sport’s reputation, starting with the decision regarding Russia’s participation in the upcoming year’s events.

“I want to see a sport that is responsible and transparent and accountable and I will do anything it takes to achieve that.”

Below Writing on the street during Tour de France 2008 at Alpe d’Huez, satirically saying that EPO is available in 500 meters.

Cover image Maria Savinova, who won gold in the 800 metres at the London 2012 Olympics, is one of the Russian athletes at the centre of the current doping scandal. Above left Former International Association of Athletics Federations president Lamine Diack has resigned from his position as an honorary member of the International Olympic Committee.

AllAboutLaw.co.uk

the Principle

The ‘golden age’ of Anglo-Chinese relations? I

COMMERCIAL INSIGHT WORDS Jack J Collins PHOTO Day Donaldson, Jerry Ofwong

A month on from President Xi Jinping’s state visit to the UK, Jack J Collins analyses what the positive and negative outcomes have been, what we’ve learnt, and what the future holds for this promised ‘golden era of Anglo-Chinese relations’.

AllAboutLaw.co.uk

t has been put forward that President Xi Jinping’s recent UK visit has brought about more questions than it has answers, and in many ways, that’s correct. Both parties have spoken of their delight at the outcome and the burgeoning relationship between the two nations, with Xi claiming that he believes the visit will lift Anglo-Chinese relations to a “new height”, and build on the “community of shared interests”, that the two nations have in common. Prime minister David Cameron expanded upon this, proclaiming the creation of a “global comprehensive strategic partnership for the 21st Century”, and the Queen herself commented that the visit was the crowning moment of a “very special year for our bilateral relationship”. But if that is the official line from the top table, what has been interesting is the lack of commentary on the social issues that many felt needed to be discussed. The video that went viral during the visit was not one of Xi riding in a carriage with the Queen or even drinking a pint of Greene King, but that of Paul Powlesland, a lawyer who just happened to be cycling in the area, getting into an argument with Xi’s supporters over China’s human rights record. The video, in which Powlesland claims that “many English people are frankly disgusted with the welcome” that Xi has received, has attained over half a million views. What is perhaps most revealing about the visit, is that despite a spokesperson for Number 10 claiming that no topic was off the discussion table, and that Cameron and Xi would be discussing a whole range of issues, the proposed discussion about China’s human rights record has remained firmly under the radar. The message that was transmitted from the Chinese Premier is that there was “room for improvement” in China’s human rights policy, but there were no specifics and indeed, no guarantees that this improvement would even be aimed for. Behind closed doors though, it was made extremely clear that there would be no promises made, and that the Chinese view on human rights was not on the same page as the British view. A senior official commented that if blocking freedom of speech was the way they could maintain social stability, then that would be done, in order to try to achieve an aim of taking ten million people out of poverty every year. The embassy played their part as well, flooding the streets with supporters so the camera crews could see plenty of pro-establishment flags and banners, and drowning out the human rights protest groups who could simply not muster the same numbers. Another telling omission from the talks was the lack of any discussion of the huge crises in Syria or Ukraine. There was simply no time for geopolitical debate, it seemed, because the order of the day was business and commerce. But as the Queen pointed out, this was a meeting of two countries who share an important honour and responsibility – that of being two of the permanent members on the UN security council. There is simply no doubt that if any of the other permanent member nations had come to Britain on a state visit, these crises would have been the foremost

Issue Four

Above A pro-democracy protest in Beijing takes place in front of a McDonald’s store as police watch on.

Opposite left President Xi Jinping gives a keynote speech as part of his state visit to the UK.

issues discussed. What is of note, therefore, is that this “bilateral relationship” of which the Queen speaks, is one which is solely and inarguably based on commercial agreements. During the visit, Sajid Javid stated that the visit would increase trade and investment between China and Britain by £25 billion; but when Cameron spoke a few days later, he claimed that it was worth £40 billion. When questioned on the matter, officials at Number 10 stated that only when the visit had officially ended, would the full details be revealed. Eventually such a list was procured, and contained deals regarding Rolls Royce engines for jets, and the nuclear power plant at Hinckley, as well as a lengthy agreement between BP and China’s Huadian Corporation. However, the figures Cameron is trumpeting as a great financial triumph have come under intense scrutiny since the departure of Xi. Former Conservative strategist Steve Hilton is one of those who feels like the concluded business is particularly favourable to the Chinese, and has lambasted the Government for sucking up to Xi. In a particularly damning conclusion, Hilton stated that the visit represented “one of the worst national humiliations since we went cap in hand to the IMF in the 70s”. The Financial Times broke down the figures offered by Downing Street and concluded the reality is not quite the business masterstroke that Cameron is presenting. The agreement between BP and Huadian, for example, is worth £6.5 billion in principle, but over the course of a 20-year period, and is not even an investement, but rather a market value being placed on the future supply of liquefied natural gas between the two corporations. An agreement for a Chinese investment group, Citic, to become the main contractor on the Royal Albert Docks regeneration has been valued at around £1.7bn, but Citic has only become a junior equity partner, claiming a 40% stake in another investment group that itself only owns 25% of the project. In addition, while the entire project is set to cost around £1.7 billion, only the first phase has been given full planning permission, and this is only worth £300 million. There’s more to it too – once broken down, many of the deals lose their lustre, as some are made with intermediate foreign firms at the heart of them, and others are actually just expansions of projects that were already in the pipeline, leaving the entire model looking like it has been given an extremely generous interpretation, In short, with a lack of discussion about the overwhelming issues that the public had with the Chinese government, and the financial stability of the new arrangement looking like a government ploy to look like they’re maximising Chinese investment, there are questions over this new partnership and whether the “golden age” of relations proclaimed around the country is built on prioritising Chinese gold over the values of humanity that Britain once steadfastly defended.

AllAboutLaw.co.uk

“Another telling omission from the talks was the lack of any discussion of the huge crises in Syria or Ukraine. There was simply no time for geopolitical debate, it seemed, because the order of the day was business and commerce.”

China represents the UK’s sixth biggest export market.

6TH

Visitor visas for Chinese tourists will be valid for two years, an increase from the previous length of six months.

£2,688 The average spend by Chinese tourists and business visitors is £2,688.

the Principle

Women: barred from the law industry boys’ club? COMMERCIAL INSIGHT WORDS Emma Finamore PHOTO The Bar Council

From LinkedIn scandals, to male-oriented working hours and networking events, to sexual assault: could a culture of sexism be the rotten core of our legal industry? These days, more women than men are training in law and becoming soliciters, but the highest levels at the Bar remain shockingly imbalanced. Emma Finamore investigates.

Below Women report a lack of support and say formal grievance procedures are not in place.

n September 2015, human rights barrister Charlotte Proudman hit the headlines for calling out sexism in the law sector after receiving inappropriate LinkedIn messages from a male partner at a law firm. In the same month, a report into the experiences of female barristers revealed some shocking allegations of sexism at the Bar. Despite this, the law industry remains incredibly attractive to women: the Law Society’s latest entry trends show that over 60% of students accepted onto law degrees are women, and 60% of those offered training contracts are women. In recent years more women than men have been qualifying as solicitors. At the Bar – when legal professionals become barristers – the latest figures show that 50% of those at the training level are women. It’s further up at the Bar when the picture changes. At the “call” stage the gender split remains 50/50, at the pupillage stage (the final stage of training) the representation of women drops to 45%, at the practicing Bar stage it’s 35%, and at the QC stage just 12%. The report published in October 2015, Snapshot: the experience of self-employed women at the Bar, gathered anecdotal evidence, asking women at the Bar to describe their experiences. It makes for shocking reading. “I got a hand down the back of my trousers once,” says one source. “When I attended court the solicitor told me my senior clerk had sold me to him on the basis that I had a great pair of legs,” remembers another. And when women are forced into these appalling situations it seems there is no one to go to, and no formal grievance procedures: “There was a man in chambers sexually harassing me,” says a source. “There was no way to complain. I think the problem with some chambers is there isn’t anyone to complain to, there isn’t one specific person whose job it is to sort those kind of problems out.” Another accuses men at the Bar of thinking they’re in a “children’s playground”. She says: “They think they can say grossly disrespectful things because nobody is going to stop them and nothing is going to be said about it.”

AllAboutLaw.co.uk

As well as the unwanted attention – verbal and physical – some women report an innate feeling among their male colleagues that the Bar should be a male-only environment. One source was told the Bar is “not a place for a woman”, and another says her senior clerk used to put applications from female candidates for clerking roles in the bin on the basis they would get “women’s troubles”. Fiona Jackson, a self-employed barrister practising in London, and vice-chair of the Bar Council’s Equality, Diversity and Social Mobility Committee, says she has experienced relatively little direct discrimination in her 17 years at the Bar. “My Inner Temple mentor told me during our only meeting that, whatever area of practice I might choose, as a woman I could only dream of succeeding in family law,” she says. “Thankfully that misogynistic view was rather archaic even then, and I’ve been lucky to have many very supportive male and female colleagues, and a Head of Chambers, who have encouraged me every step of the way.” At the other end of the law career ladder the picture is also looking positive. Cecily Higham, 21, is currently studying the LPC with a view to starting her training contract with a corporate law firm in early 2017. “I‘ve never experienced discriminatory treatment during my studies or while on placements at law firms or chambers,” she says. “This could change as I spend more time in the legal industry, but I think sexist behavior is symptomatic of problems in society as a whole, rather than simply the legal industry.” She has also never experienced pressure to pursue a particular area of law either, unlike some of the women quoted in the Bar Council report: “I think stereotypes like that are left over from previous generations. The family law stereotype was never supported by my university experience.” Despite this, many women at the Bar do report frustration with stereotypes. Networking is often designed around traditionally ‘male’ activities and interests (e.g. football, cricket, golf), and survey responders say the design and timing of chambers’

Issue Four

marketing events are often non-inclusive. Some talk about how they felt as young women at the beginning of their careers, entertaining male clients, with fears about how their behaviour might be perceived. Jackson agrees these can be an issue: “Many women find networking events intimidating, especially if they are young women expected to go out for drinks with male solicitors who might consider giving them work. I loathe such ‘networking drinks’.” She prefers instead to organise and attend lectures and other informal events where solicitors and barristers can mix freely in a “pleasant atmosphere” – a way of sidestepping the potentially seedy side of networking. Of course networking may be impossible regardless of whether you enjoy it or not, if you are a mother. Most women barristers who are parents are the primary carers for their children: 57% of female parents at the Bar, compared to just 4% of men. Many women leave after becoming parents and simply never return, resulting in under-representation at senior levels. For every four men with over 22 years’ call, there is just one woman. One Bar Council source says: “The reality is this profession is simply not set up for working mothers, unless they have a partner who elects to take on the home maker role.” This is an issue for all industries, but there are some elements that make it especially tough for women at the Bar who want to start families. Cuts to publicly funded practice – ironically the area in which women outnumber men – mean cuts in income, which makes sustaining practice (evening / weekend working, the inconvenience of long hours) as a primary carer even harder. The tough parts are no longer compensated by high income, which in the past enabled women to take longer breaks during school holidays and afford fulltime childcare. This is something that concerns Higham at the beginning of her career: “I feel worried about having children and pursuing a legal career,” she says. “Particularly at the Bar, because it seems the attitude is still that childcare is the responsibility of mothers not fathers.” At least these concerns are being noticed, and people within the industry are bursting with ideas to help rectify issues. Alistair MacDonald QC, chairman of the Bar Council, has expressed alarm at the low levels of women at senior levels of the industry. He advocates barrister-friendly nurseries and progressive parental leave policies, and wants the panels deciding which barristers become QCs to take into account the amount of time a woman has had to take off work to raise children.

“I got a hand down the back of my trousers once... When I attended court the solicitor told me my senior clerk had sold me to him on the basis that I had a great pair of legs.”

Above At the practicing Bar stage, women make up just 35% of the work force.

AllAboutLaw.co.uk

In its report, the Bar Council also suggests mentoring as a way to practically assist women. It recommends extending the Bar Mentoring Service to ensure a scheme is available to support women in building their practice and establishing working relationships with clerks/practice managers, making them more confident when asking for flexible working arrangements. The report emphasises the importance of advice and coaching, marketing networks, support networks, and of female role models. “More junior women need to see it is possible to have a successful career at the Bar,” it states. “More senior women need to step up and support junior women. In particular women with different backgrounds and ways of working need to be identified and encouraged to tell their stories, including those who have taken career breaks for children.” The report also encourages a better gender balance on key decision-making committees within chambers, to ensure they empower women members and do not develop policies that disadvantage women. Jackson whole-heartedly agrees: “We must stand up for ourselves and feel able to rely on our colleagues to support us in calling out poor systems, not least because human nature dictates that individuals generally respond badly when their discriminatory behaviour is pointed out to them and, in many chambers, there is still a gender imbalance in key decisionmaking committees.” From the inside, it looks like this is already well on the way. Jackson says the Bar Council and other associations are working on events and initiatives around mentoring, positive role models, marketing and parental networks, flexible working practices and balanced decision-making committees. Higham, looking to start a training contract in 2017, is less enthusiastic about the recommendations. She sees the issues as being bigger than the legal profession: “I really feel the major barriers to women at the Bar, and in demanding jobs generally, will only improve when society stops trying to tell women that raising and caring for children is their non-negotiable role and sphere.” She also thinks the number of women in high profile legal offices should be increased by drawing more judges from academic backgrounds, rather than from the Bar exclusively. Even though it can be tough as a woman in the legal profession, it can obviously be incredibly rewarding. Jackson says: “If you persevere, you will find that there are few more stimulating, intellectually challenging and rewarding careers than life as a barrister.” And surely this should be something completely open to everyone here in the UK, regardless of gender.

the Principle

Repealing the Human Rights Act: crucial or criminal? COMMERCIAL INSIGHT

WORDS Emma Finamore PHOTO Elizabeth Wilmshurst, Foreign & Commonwealth Office

The Conservative government wants to replace the Human Rights Act with a ‘British bill of rights’. Emma Finamore asks why, and what the implications of such a move would be.

Above Philippe Sands QC, barrister and professor of international law, accuses the government of “playing a dangerous game”.

hile debate raged over issues like the NHS and immigration in the run up to 2015’s general election, the Conservative’s manifesto pledge to repeal the Human Rights Act went largely ignored. Now that the party is in power however, this repeal is a very real possibility: the UK could soon be operating under its own ‘British bill of rights’. The move – to repeal and replace the Human Rights Act before the next general election – comes after years of tension between the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and British politicians. The ECHR was established in 1959 on the basis of the European convention on human rights; the court is charged with ensuring the enforcement and implementation of the European convention in the member states of the Council of Europe. The ECHR rules on a range of areas – a ban on slavery, peoples’ right not to be tortured, the right to a fair trial, and the right for men and women to marry, for example – and its decisions are legally binding on member nations, which face fines if they ignore the rulings. Britain incorporated the convention into the law of the UK in 1998 with the Human Rights Act. The UK government has recently clashed with European judges over a UK ban on prisoners voting in elections, and over Abu Qatada, the terror suspect who was only deported to Jordan after years of legal wrangling. The Conservatives hope to avoid clashes of this kind in future by introducing a British bill of rights that is rooted in what the party calls “British values”. The party acknowledges that the Human Rights Act contains an admirable set of principles and does not plan to introduce new basic rights, instead saying it wants to “restore common sense and tackle the misuse of the rights contained in the Convention”. The Conservatives argue that the reforms will ensure that the human rights court will no longer be able to overrule judgements made in British courts and will make “the Supreme Court supreme”. The Tory party claims to want a bill of rights specifically designed to fit British needs and traditions. They say this would allow the ECHR to apply a “margin of appreciation” - more discretion - in its rulings, so judges would be more likely to take into account British culture and history. The move has been met with vehement criticism from the Labour party, the SNP, legal professionals, the public, and – unsurprisingly – human rights organisations. Nicola Sturgeon, First Minister of Scotland and leader of the SNP, has described it

AllAboutLaw.co.uk

as “wholly unnecessary” and has expressed concern that it one that would diminish the international reputation of the UK. Kate Allen, director of Amnesty International UK, says: “The government should abandon its ill-advised plans to repeal the Human Rights Act. There’s simply no appetite for their proposals among the British public.” She points out that there is little public appetite for government meddling with the current system or cherry-picking what basic rights we do and don’t adhere to: recent research commissioned by Amnesty International found that 78% of British people believe rights have to apply to everyone equally; 67% agree that governments should not be able to choose which rights they enforce. Just 3% of British adults say the changes should be the most important priority for the government, and just 11% rank repealing the Act in their top three priority issues for government. “It’s quite right that it shouldn’t be up to governments to pick and choose which rights we are entitled to and select who they deem worthy of them,” says Allen. “It took ordinary people a very long time to claim these rights and we mustn’t let politicians take them away with the stroke of a pen. “This is no time for the British government to set about dismantling and undermining human rights protections. Reducing rights anywhere endangers rights everywhere. How can we ask other countries, like Saudi Arabia, China or Russia, to uphold human rights, if we are busy tearing up the rule book at home.” In fact, lots of people are happy with how things currently stand: almost half of GB adults (46%) would not want to remove any of the rights currently in the Human Rights Act from a new bill of rights. “The government has said it wants to consult on its proposals, and we have done their job for them here,” says Allen. “The message from the British people is clear; leave the Human Rights Act alone.” This actually backs up the government’s own research findings. At this year’s Conservative party conference, it was revealed that the party’s own election strategist Lynton Crosby had ruled the issue should be given a low billing in the election campaign, after party research found that just 16% of people identified human rights changes as a priority. In a speech in June 2015, Harriet Harman emphasised the importance of the Act for the British legal system: “When difficult judgements have to be made, the Human Rights Act sets the

Issue Four

framework for what has to be taken into account. The competing rights which have to be weighed in the balance. Like balancing the right of an individual to privacy against the right of freedom of the press.” Philippe Sands QC, a barrister in the Matrix Chambers and a professor of international law at UCL, has described the government as “playing a dangerous game”. A game that he fears may result in the UK reverting to an isolated country, stripped of its connections to Europe, and leaving its citizens “deprived of rights or the means to enforce them before our courts”. Sands also questions the substance of the Act’s suggested replacement, writing in The Guardian: “They propose a ‘British Bill of Rights’ but do not know what it would contain, how it might work, and how – if at all – it would relate to the European convention. All we know is that its proponents wish that foreign criminals could ‘be more easily deported from Britain’, and that the supreme court was the ultimate arbiter of human rights matters in the UK.” There are also fears that by repealing the Act, Britain could cause a domino effect of repeals or even departures from the convention. Currently, it could be argued, the UK plays an exemplary role through its membership of the ECHR, and adherence and respect for its judgements: only four violations were recorded against the UK last year, compared with 16 against Belgium, 17 against France, 39 against Italy and a staggering 122 against Russia. If one of its most dependable members repealed a key part of the ECHR, it could potentially pave the way for less liberal members such as the Ukraine and Russia to do the same, leading to more human rights abuses across Europe. There’s also the fact that the UK helped create Article 19. “Often, discussions regarding the UK and the ECHR suggest that the convention is something foreign to UK law. However, the UK has been instrumental in the drafting and development of the convention,” says Eleni Frantzou of University College London in her 2013 policy briefing, Human rights and British values. “The ECHR was drafted largely under the supervision of Sir David Maxwell Fyfe; the UK was the first country to ratify the convention in 1951; and Lord McNair, a British legal scholar, became the first President of the ECtHR in 1959. “Still, British involvement in the convention has not merely

been a matter of historic coincidence. ECHR rights and freedoms are rooted as deeply in UK law as the Magna Carta and have been resolutely protected by courts in this country well before the entry into force of the convention. The convention and, in turn, the Human Rights Act 1998, codify values that have long imbued the British common law and enshrine ‘quintessentially British’ ideals.” But obviously not everyone agrees, especially those who believe that a ‘quintessentially British’ ideal is a Britain with total sovereignty. The Human Rights Act incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law. This, of course, gives the ECHR influence over British legislation. “It can be argued that any transfer of sovereignty to an international institution is unacceptable, because it necessarily interferes with the very concept of democratic representation, which is still effected at the national level, through the electoral process,” says Frantzou. “The concept of Parliamentary sovereignty is perhaps the most fundamental principle of the UK constitutional order.” Critics of the ECHR also raise issues of speed, efficiency and bureaucracy: some say its huge backlog of cases threatens rather than helps human rights, with more than 150,000 cases waiting to be looked at. 2011 statistics reveal that in that year alone there were 64,500 new applications to the court, adding to a backlog of 160,200 cases. While it is difficult to produce an accurate average of the length of proceedings before the court, it is clear that proceedings can take a very long time. In many cases, the time that elapses between allocation to a judicial formation and judgment can be as long as four or five years, and the duration of the proceedings since the time of application can exceed six years. Not helpful if you’re a nation trying to deport someone as a matter of urgency. The government is planning to fast-track the creation of the so-called British bill of rights, aiming to get the controversial legislation on to the statute books by next summer; a 12-week public consultation on the move will start at the end of 2015. In this flurried fight for sovereignty, set against the backdrop of an increasingly tense relationship between the UK and Europe, it’s poignant to consider whether it’s the rights of individual states that are really being fought over, rather than the rights of individual citizens.

“It took ordinary people a very long time to claim these rights and we mustn’t let politicians take them away with the stroke of a pen. The message from the British people is clear; leave the Human Rights Act alone.”

Left Kate Allen, director of Amnesty International UK, has spoken out against the proposed repeal.

AllAboutLaw.co.uk

the Principle

Issue Four

First years: get your foot in the door COMMERCIAL INSIGHT WORDS Harry McEnaney

From open days to campus events, high profile City firm Slaughter and May offers plenty of chances for first years to get involved. AllAboutLaw spoke to Harry McEnaney from the trainee recruitment team to find out more. WHAT ARE THE FIRST YEAR OPPORTUNITIES OFFERED BY SLAUGHTER AND MAY? We run two open days for first year law students at our London office during the spring vacation.

HOW IMPORTANT ARE OPEN DAYS TO SLAUGHTER AND MAY, AND ARE THEY ASSESSED? WHAT HAPPENS ON A TYPICAL SLAUGHTER AND MAY OPEN DAY?

Our open days focus on giving students a better understanding of City law and are most definitely not assessed. At this early stage, we think it is more important to give students an overview of corporate law and explain what lawyers actually do, rather than focussing specifically on Slaughter and May and what makes us stand out. We aim to make our open days interactive and engaging. Students will learn about the different areas of law practiced by many large City firms and the roles of the trainees, associates and partners. You’ll even spend some time exploring our London office with some of the current trainees during our interactive exercise, designed to show you what tasks a trainee undertakes from day to day. Finally, offering an insight into what firms are looking for in potential trainees, our recruitment partners give tips on how to write a strong CV and cover letter so you are well prepared for future applications.

HOW MUCH INTERACTION WITH PARTNERS AND TRAINEES WILL FIRST YEARS HAVE? Partners run many of the presentations during the open days. They are always willing to answer any questions that you might have during the sessions and actively encourage students to get involved so this is a great time to interact with them. Being able to talk to trainees already undertaking a training contract is also a great way to learn about life as a City solicitor - that’s why trainees are there to chat to students over lunch and to guide them through the exercises.

WHAT ARE YOU LOOKING FOR IN AN OPEN DAY APPLICATION?

The best way to make yourself stand out is to tell us about you as an individual. Use your CV as an opportunity to show what you have done outside of your studies - no matter what it is. We know that as first years you may not have any university results yet, but be sure to include the marks that you do have - even if it’s just one essay result. Please give clear reasons for your application in your cover letter and explain why you would benefit from attending the open day. Selection is based solely on your application form, CV and covering letter, so make it count!

SLAUGHTER AND MAY HOSTS ON-CAMPUS EVENTS. WHAT EXACTLY DOES THE FIRM OFFER AND WOULD YOU RECOMMEND FIRST YEARS ATTEND? We attend and organise numerous events on campus: presentations, law fairs, and skills workshops, to name just a few. Trainees, associates, partners and members of our trainee recruitment team attend these events and are happy to answer any questions you have about Slaughter and May. This year we’ll also be running recruiter drop-in sessions at some universities during January and February. This will be an opportunity for anyone who is interested to have an informal chat to one of our trainee recruitment team, get some advice on applications and even review your CV if you would find it helpful. All students are welcome at our campus events, including first years! We’re happy to answer any questions - whether you’ve always wanted to be a lawyer or you just want to find out more. We look forward to meeting you all!

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.

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

Training contract: • No of places: Approx 80 • No of seats abroad: Approx 30 • Required degree grade: Strong 2:1 • First year salary: £41,000 • Second year salary: £46,000 • Post-Qualification salary: £70,000 • Overseas offices: Brussels, Beijing and Hong Kong, plus ‘Best Friend’ firms in all the major jurisdictions Application deadline: 29 July 2016

www.slaughterandmay.com

Easter work experience scheme: • One week from 4 - 8 April 2016 • Open to law and non law penultimate year students Application deadline: 18 December 2015

trainee.recruit@slaughterandmay.com

(0)20 7090 4454

facebook.com/SlaughterandMayTraineeCareers

Inside scoop: a City law trainee COMMERCIAL INSIGHT WORDS Georgie Smith PHOTO Slaughter and May

Georgie Smith graduated in French and Italian from Bristol University in 2012 and joined Slaughter and May as a trainee solicitor in March 2014. WHY DID YOU CHOOSE TO DO YOUR TRAINING CONTRACT AT A CITY LAW FIRM?

I am in my fourth seat so the next stop is qualification. My other seats were in Real Estate, Corporate and Finance.

I was keen to work on high profile matters for prestigious clients, alongside leading members of the profession. City law firms run excellent training programmes and their lawyers have a wealth of expertise; I wanted to learn from the best.

HOW ARE SEATS CHOSEN AT SLAUGHTER AND MAY?

WHAT WAS THE FIRST DAY OF YOUR TRAINING CONTRACT LIKE? Exciting! I was offered a training contract during my final year at Bristol University and I had to wait two and a half years to start while I completed my degree, the GDL and the LPC; it felt like a long time! I started with friends I had made on the LPC and we were eased in gently with a two week induction programme, so I felt calm and prepared by the time I finally made it to my desk.

I am currently sitting in Competition. I have found the work enjoyable because Competition cases, such as price fixing and cartel offences, often hit the headlines. Understanding the background to a matter makes the work accessible and interesting.

AllAboutLaw.co.uk

Summer schemes: • 2 x three week summer schemes in June/July for penultimate year law students • 20 June to 8 July and 11 - 29 July 2016 • 1 x three week summer scheme in September for penultimate year non law students • 30 August to 16 September 2016 Application Deadline: 7 January 2016

One Bunhill Row, London, EC1Y 8YY

WHICH SEAT ARE YOU CURRENTLY DOING? WHAT DO YOU ENJOY MOST ABOUT IT?

First year opportunities: • 2 x one day first year open days • 30 March and 7 April 2016 Application deadline: 29 January 2016

Before joining the firm, we were invited to attend a seat selection event where a partner from each department explains what working in their practice area entails. Trainees then submit a seat preference form and discuss their choices with HR when they join the firm. All trainees spend time in one of the firm’s Corporate and Financing groups. We then choose our other two seats from Dispute Resolution, Competition, IP/IT, Financial Regulation, Pensions & Employment, Tax and Real Estate. We can also apply for an international secondment in the second year of our training contract.

WHAT IS THE SUPPORT SYSTEM LIKE AT SLAUGHTER AND MAY? WHAT DO YOU DO WHEN YOU’VE GOT A PROBLEM OR ARE STUCK ON A PROJECT? If I’m stuck on a piece of work my first port of call is usually my supervisor. I try to think of possible solutions to the problem before meeting up, as supervisors tend to use trainees as sounding boards

AllAboutLaw.co.uk

and expect to have a proper discussion. For any personal issues, I would either speak to a friend here or a previous supervisor. HR’s door is always open too. In fact, all of the doors in the firm are open, as we have an open door policy to encourage collaboration.

HOW DO YOU HANDLE THE LIFE-WORK BALANCE WHEN WORKING AT A CITY LAW FIRM? The hours at Slaughter and May are usually very reasonable but there will be occasions, and sometimes fairly long periods, when you need to stay beyond dinner time. That said, the partners here are hugely appreciative when you work long hours and they often award days off in lieu. The firm does not have target hours or a face-time culture, which helps you achieve a work-life balance. If you have finished your work by 5.30pm, you are not expected to stay, so don’t!

WHAT ADVICE WOULD YOU GIVE TO PEOPLE CURRENTLY APPLYING FOR TRAINING CONTRACTS AT CITY LAW FIRMS? Tailor your application to the firm you are applying to and show an interest in that firm’s work and strategy. Make sure you know your CV inside out and be prepared to back up every sentence at interview.

the Principle

Hear no EVEL, see no EVEL? If English MPs are blocked from voting on certain Scottish matters, then why is it allowed the other way around? The new English votes for English laws (EVEL) procedure is intended to address this contradiction in the House of Commons. Emma Finamore explores whether it is up to the task.

t’s been a strange few years for the UK. In 2014’s independence referendum, 45% of Scottish voters selected to leave the union. In 2015’s general election, the Scottish National Party (SNP) won a landslide victory in the Scottish Parliament, further demonstrating anti-Westminster feeling. In October 2015, the House of Commons agreed to apply new procedures to government bills – English votes for English laws (EVEL) – that will prevent non-English MPs from voting on decisions that only apply to England. EVEL is intended to deal with the ‘West Lothian question’: how Scottish, Northern Irish and Welsh MPs have a say in English matters, such as health and education, but (due to devolution) English MPs do not have a say in equivalent matters in those countries. The Speaker of the House of Commons will have to declare a bill to be ‘English’ or ‘English and Welsh’ only, and only relevant MPs will be allowed to vote on it.

This might seem entirely logical at first glance, but debate over the past year has exposed the complexity of the issue, and it is unclear if EVEL really is the silver bullet its proponents claim. Chris Grayling, leader of the Commons, thinks the plans will strengthen the union, as people in England will feel there is a greater balance following the devolution of power settlements with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. But many remain unconvinced. Philip Booth, author of Federal Britain, published by the Institute of Economic Affairs, thinks it will lead to unstable, less transparent government, and constitutional crisis. “To start with, different MPs will be responsible for different types of legislation – so there will be two categories of MPs,” he says. “But, also, what would happen if one party – most likely the Labour Party – had a majority in the UK but not in England? “Labour would form the government and have Secretaries of

BACK TO HOUSE (If sections rejected)

FIRST READING If England-only issue

SECOND READING

ENGLISH MPS COMMITTEE STAGE

If England and national issue

COMMITTEE STAGE

REPORT STAGE

Grand committee of English MPs approves relevant parts

THIRD READING HOUSE OF LORDS If England-only issue ammendments

Double majority of English MPs and all MPs

HOUSE OF COMMONS

ROYAL ASSENT

Left How the proposed EVEL procedure would see bills become Acts.

AllAboutLaw.co.uk

COMMERCIAL INSIGHT WORDS Emma Finamore

State for Health, Education and so on, but would not actually be able to pass legislation on them. The government would be impotent across large areas of policy, but the Conservatives would not be able to govern England either because the government would be determined by which party had a majority in the whole House of Commons.” The SNP claims Scottish MPs will become “second-class citizens” and says on its website: “These EVEL plans exclude MPs from Scotland, and from other areas outside England, from voting on legislation that could have effects on other parts of the UK.” Criticism has been leveled by other parties too: Labour claims EVEL will hasten the break up of the United Kingdom, backing an English voice in Parliament rather than an English veto, while the Democratic Unionist Party of Northern Ireland claims EVEL won’t really deal with the problem. There are also technical ambiguities that have not yet been resolved. Issues which may appear to be ‘England only’ could have knock-on consequences in terms of Scottish, Northern Irish or Welsh public finances, which means declaring bills English only might be difficult. Decisions on NHS spending, for example, will be problematic: the SNP would want to vote against privatisation to protect Scotland’s budget, but could be prevented from voting. Critics have also raised the problem of giving the Speaker such a pivotal role: EVEL would force him/her to make political judgements, but some say there is currently no clear procedure about how to decide whether a bill is relevant to just England or England and Wales. Booth thinks the UK should create a federal structure, a union of partially self-governing states or regions under a central (federal) government, such as is in the United States to get around these criticisms. “There should be a UK parliament that is responsible only for defence, border control, foreign policy and – if we keep central banks, I would prefer to see them scrapped – monetary policy and financial regulation,” he says. Under Booth’s hypothetical system, the UK government would be responsible for managing existing national debt, and a federal parliament would meet once a month, responsible for about 20% of UK government spending. “Everything else should be the responsibility of a Scottish government and a ‘Rest of UK’ government, unless the Welsh and Northern Irish would like to go it alone too,” he says. “Crucially, every penny spent in Scotland, except on the basic federal functions, would be raised in Scotland. If Scotland voted for a bigger welfare state, it would pay for it. If Scotland voted to spend more on education, the Scottish taxpayers would be sent the bill.” Not everyone sees EVEL as unworkable though. Alex Massie, writing on The Spectator blog, argues it is the best solution to a problem that has been caused by all parties, not just one group – making any finger pointing unfounded – and that in practice the new powers will not be used very often. “It bears repeating that the SNP are now complaining about a measure they think will hasten independence. Truly, there is no satisfying some people,” he says. “Determining what is, and what is not, an English-only affair is in the gift of the Speaker. The present Speaker at least will, I fancy, take an inclusive approach to these matters; an approach that will please SNP members more often than it does English MPs.” Regardless of what critics say, EVEL is coming into practice. Whether it breaks an already fragmented union remains to be seen, but one thing is for certain: the UK is set to change.

Issue Four

INSPIRATION. ENTHUSIASM. PASSION. Nominate your Law Teacher of the Year by Friday 8 January 2016

www.oxfordtextbooks.co.uk/lawteacher

Islamic law in the UK

n the UK we’re accustomed to hearing about harsh sentences handed down in some Muslim states in the name of Sharia law, but now concerns are mounting that Islamic law holds too strong a grip here, and that in some communities it could be undermining national law. Of course, Sharia law is not simply a list of crimes and punishments: it is Islam’s legal system, literally meaning “the clear, well-trodden path to water”, informing every aspect of daily life for Muslims. It’s a code for living, including prayers, fasting and charity, family law, finance and business, helping those who follow it understand how to lead every aspect of life according to Islam. A British Muslim wondering what to do if her colleagues invite her to the pub after work, may turn to a Sharia scholar for advice, to ensure she acts within the legal framework of Islam. Sharia jurisprudence is not confined to a specific country or state: as it is drawn from religion, it resides within the individual. A Muslim following Sharia is expected to abide by it wherever he/she lives in the world. Like any legal system, it is complex and practice is entirely reliant on those dispensing with it. There are five different schools of Sharia, each doctrine differing in its interpretation of the law, making it hard to talk about a single Sharia law. It’s also hard for many British Muslims to adhere to English law while preserving their personal practices of Islamic law, and for generations (following the mass migration of Muslims to the UK in the 1950s-60s) there was no framework for this. As a result they found themselves adhering to the principles of Islamic law – in personal matters such as marriage, divorce, inheritance and wills – in complete isolation to English law. The Muslim Arbitration Tribunal (MAT) was established in 2007 to address this and provide a viable alternative for those seeking to resolve disputes through mediation in accordance with

Sharia law. Under the remit of the Arbitration Act 1996, MAT acts as an alternative dispute resolution organisation, dealing with Islamic law within the context of the English legal system. There are other bodies operating under the same framework – e.g. the Islamic Sharia Council (ISC) and the Muslim Law Sharia Council – purporting to simply help resolve domestic issues and social dilemmas for British Muslims. The Muslim Law Sharia Council states clearly that it “maintains a policy of avoiding conflict between the law of the land and Islamic law in its deliberation”. These bodies have no real powers under English law. They offer resolution to disputes but have no jurisdiction in criminal matters, or civil law. They can dissolve religious marriages, for example, but couples must still obtain a civil divorce from a standard court. Or at least that’s the official line. In May 2015, home secretary Theresa May pledged to launch an independent review into the operation of UK Sharia courts, claiming they are being used to discriminate against women. In October 2015, Baroness Caroline Cox told the House of Lords that “thousands of Muslim women” are backing her Arbitration and Mediation Services (Equality) bill, accusing the courts of stepping outside their remit and ruling on criminal cases concerning domestic violence and grievous bodily harm. And, more importanlty, she claims to have the evidence to back it up. In her 2015 report – A parallel world: confronting the abuse of many Muslim women in Britain today – Cox says: “The MAT has admitted in the past to overseeing six cases of domestic violence, apparently working ‘in tandem’ with police investigations. In each case the women who had been abused withdrew their complaints to the police, while the MAT judges suggested that the husbands take anger-management classes and advice from Muslim elders with no further punishment.”

AllAboutLaw.co.uk

COMMERCIAL INSIGHT WORDS Emma Finamore

Cox’s report contains many damning testimonies of the female experience of Sharia courts. A woman called Sami says: “Like me, many Muslim women are asylum seekers. They have fled their home country to live a safe life, they are running away from oppression and persecution (...) They should not arrive in the UK to be met with further oppression through the operation of Sharia law. The government should ensure that everyone in the UK abides by the English legal system.” And it’s not just members of the British establishment voicing concern. The Iranian and Kurdish Women’s Rights Organisation says: “We are calling on the government to investigate bodies involved in providing Islamic divorce services without delay and to take rapid steps to address discriminatory practices within them.” It claims some women seeking Muslim divorce face discrimination, and others seeking help for domestic violence or forced marriage issues are at risk of further abuse. It claims to have evidence of discrimination against women by bodies like the MAT and that it has identified conflicts with the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, the Children Act 1989 and the Human Rights Act 1998. Another major point of concern is that no one actually knows for certain how many Sharia courts or tribunals are in operation in the UK. A 2009 report (the latest figures) by think tank Civitas claimed there are at least 85 operating across Britain, but that there are “dozens of informal tribunals run out of mosques or online”. When issues as serious as discrimination, domestic violence or forced marriage are involved, it’s hard to argue that a system should go un-regulated. The real challenge for people like May and Cox lies in how to investigate and regulate Sharia law in the UK without damaging the already delicate relationships between the nation’s communities, or crushing the rights of the very people they say they are trying to protect.

the Principle

Bitcoin: commodity or currency? COMMERCIAL INSIGHT WORDS Emma Finamore PHOTO ScottKs

Bitcoin isn’t the same legal entity here in the EU as it is across the pond in the USA. Confused much? Let Emma Finamore explain.

Left How long until Bitcoin becomes legal tender used by the average EU citizen?

f you thought wrapping your head around Bitcoin – a digital currency in which encryption techniques are used to regulate the generation of units of currency and verify the transfer of funds, operating independently of a central bank – was difficult, then watch out: things are about to get even trickier. You see, when it comes to Bitcoin, Europe’s highest court and the USA’s major tax agency don’t agree on exactly what it is. In the EU, Bitcoin is treated as a currency, whereas in the USA it is officially a commodity. In a decision in October 2015, Europe’s court of justice (ECJ) effectively decided that Bitcoin is a currency, and therefore the transactions in which Bitcoins are exchanged for other currencies are exempt from VAT (or sales tax in the USA) – a tax added to the price of goods. All exchanges relating to bank notes, coins and currencies are therefore exempt from VAT under European law. The ruling came after a dispute in a Swedish court when David Hedqvist, a Swedish national, applied for permission to operate his online Bitcoin exchange. The Swedish Revenue Law Commission initially told Hedqvist that Bitcoin was exempt from VAT but the Swedish Tax Authority appealed against that decision. The ECJ then ruled against the position of the Swedish Tax Authority, bringing it into line with many EU states that have already moved to exempt the digital currency for VAT. To make things even more confusing, just a month before the ruling here in Europe, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) in the USA – the body that regulates the States’ futures and options markets – ruled the absolute opposite: that Bitcoin should be seen as a commodity rather than a currency;

essentially property for tax purposes. Just like gold or silver, crude oil or wheat, those trading in Bitcoin in the States will have to pay the USA’s version of VAT – a sales tax. You’d be forgiven for thinking this might confuse trade (in Bitcoin) taking place between people and businesses dealing with each other from opposite sides of the Atlantic. But Matt Clinch, deputy digital news editor at CNBC.com, who has written extensively on the topic of Bitcoin, does not think this will be the case. In fact he doesn’t think the different rulings in the EU and US will have any practical impact on dealing in Bitcoin on opposite sides of the Atlantic. “It should make no difference,” he says. “The ruling only affects Bitcoin derivatives – financial instruments that are connected to the price of Bitcoin.” The derivatives market is a financial market for financial instruments ‘derived’ from underlying assets. This means the financial instruments (in this case different sorts of contracts) traded on this market represent an agreement for a specified asset (the ‘underlying asset’) to be transferred/paid for at a later point at an agreed time. Essentially, derivatives contracts are IOUs for things like commodities, equities (ownership in a company, stocks and shares), bonds, interest rates and currencies. Clinch says the impact will be on the firms in the US, subject to sales tax, rather than on their Bitcoin dealings with firms in the EU: “In practice that ruling will just mean Bitcoin derivatives firms - which don’t trade in the actual currency - will have to pay more money, and they’ll need a license with the CFTC”. He does think it could be damaging for Bitcoin in the USA overall: “It could stamp out a nascent industry before it gets going.”

AllAboutLaw.co.uk

The EU ruling however could be said to a boon for the nascent industry here: paving the way for potentially cheaper transactions within Europe. Jonathan Rogers, partner in the financial services regulatory group at international law firm Taylor Wessing, sees it as an opportunity for emerging forms of financial services. “The ruling is a shot in the arm – bringing growth and consolidation,” he says in an article on CNBC.com. “Greater clarity can now emerge in the debate about how to regulate virtual currencies, leading to increased credibility and consumer confidence; in turn, virtual currencies will have a much greater critical mass in the financial services system.” But some have argued the differing approaches of regulators in the EU and the US highlight an on-going uncertainty and difficulty – faced by both jurisdictions – in trying to manage the growth of the cryptocurrency, struggling to keep checks on the myriad startups, investors and companies eager to incorporate Bitcoin into their businesses and portfolios, while staying on the right side of the law. Not that these uncertainties seem to be slowing the momentum of the industry at all. UK-based Magister Advisors, which advises the technology industry on mergers and acquisitions, interviewed 30 of the leading Bitcoin companies from across the globe. It found a consensus view that Bitcoin will become the sixth largest global reserve currency within 15 years. But with experts like Dan McCrum of the Financial Times calling Bitcoin the latest in “the long history of pyramid schemes”, maybe none of it will matter this time next year. That’s why Bitcoin is such a gamble, albeit an attractive one.

Issue Four

Still confused? Read on for some Bitcoin basics. Who knows, this time next year you could be a millionaire...

HOW DOES THE BITCOIN SYSTEM WORK?

HOW ARE BITCOINS OBTAINED?

Bitcoin is sometimes referred to as a cryptocurrency because it relies on the principles of cryptography – communication that’s secure from the view of third parties – to validate transactions and govern the production of the currency itself. Each Bitcoin is encrypted with a unique identity, and each user is encrypted with a unique identity. Each transaction is recorded on a decentralised public ledger that is visible to all computers on the network but that doesn’t reveal personal information about the involved parties. Cryptographic techniques enable special users on the network – known as ‘miners’ – to gather together blocks of new transactions and compete to verify that those transactions are valid. To be valid a buyer must have the amount of Bitcoin being spent and has transferred that amount to the seller’s account. Miners that successfully verify a block of transactions are rewarded by the network’s controlling computer algorithm with 25 newly created Bitcoins. The price of Bitcoin relative to other currencies is determined by supply and demand. In January 2015, a single Bitcoin was valued at around £145. However, the price has been quite volatile: it was less than £13 in January 2013, more than £700 in December 2013, and around £210 as recently as mid-December 2014. This shows a drop in value of more than 30% in just one month.

To interact on the Bitcoin network, users must download the free and open-source Bitcoin software, available from many suppliers on the web. Once connected to the network, there are three ways to obtain Bitcoins. 1. A user can exchange conventional money (e.g. dollars, yen, and euros) for a fee on an online exchange (e.g. Okcoin, Coinbase, and Kraken). The exchange fee falls with the size of the transaction, ranging from 0.5% for small transactions down to 0.2% for large transactions. 2. A user can obtain Bitcoins in exchange for the sale of goods or services, as when a merchant accepts Bitcoin from a buyer for the sale of his product. 3. A user can acquire new Bitcoins by serving as a miner and successfully verifying the validity of new network transactions. The chances of obtaining Bitcoins through mining is proportional to the amount of computer processing power that miner can apply. It’s unlikely a typical office or home computer will be able to do this.

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

Size doesn’t matter, but it’s something you should consider

500-1,000

250-500

100-250 These figures represent the combined number of partners and lawyers at the firms’ UK offices (unless otherwise specified).

AllAboutLaw.co.uk

1,000-2,000

Freshfields: 3,303 (global) King & Wood Mallesons: 3,250 (global) Hoagn Lovells: 2,500 (global) Ashurst: 2,200

Skadden Arps: 1,700 (global) DWF: 1,436 DLA Piper: 1,263 Irwin Mitchell: 1,124

Shoosmiths: 978 Bond Dickinson: 868 Herbert Smith Freehills: 861 Slaughter and May: 721 Berwin Leighton Paisner: 641 Baker & McKenzie: 517 Mills & Reeve: 508

he top law firms in the UK come in all shapes and sizes; although size does not govern a firm’s reputation or quality of work, each firm offers a very different experience to any aspiring solicitor looking to train with them. Different people thrive in different environments, so ultimately company culture should be an important consideration in your choice of firm. National firms operate only within the UK, whereas international and US-based firms may offer the opportunity to undertake cross-jurisdiction work. Smaller firms are likely to be more collegiate, whereas larger firms may have a lot less inter-departmental cross over. You need to be informed, so we’ve categorised the top players by combining the number of partners and lawyers at each firm’s UK offices, or where applicable, global offices.

Farrer & Co: 244 Holman Fenwick Willan: 228 Shearman & Sterling: 180 Weil: 160 Dechert: 153

WORDS Sofia Gymer

Simmons & Simmons: 452 Nabarro: 400 Dentons: 371 Reed Smith: 350 Olswang: 333 RPC: 311 White & Case: 310 Mayer Brown: 268

ADVICE

2,000+

Issue Four

Employable? Prove it. Win an assessment centre with leading law firms.

the Principle

Opposite Get to know how law firms function as businesses, to impress at interview.

Industry experts: how to prepare for interviews & assessment centres

Below right Make sure to demonstrate some knowledge of the relevant area of law when at interview or assessment centre.

Sofia Gymer takes a look at the ways aspiring solicitors can prepare themselves before interviews and assessment centres, with the help of some industry experts.

ADVICE WORDS Sofia Gymer PHOTO Mikhail Pavstyuk

acation scheme interviews are likely to be the first exposure to law firms that most students have. Consequently, the experience can be quite overwhelming, where nerves disrupt your full potential. Interviews are almost always nerve-wracking, so we’ve put together some advice with the help of our law industry contacts to make sure you do yourself justice.

RESEARCH THE FIRM & ITS CURRENT TRANSACTIONS This might seem obvious, but in the confusion of multiple applications it’s easy to get in a muddle over the facts about different firms. Before an interview or assessment centre, take the preceding couple of weeks to research the ins and outs of that firm, how it functions as a business, the current transactions it is involved in and the pressures influencing the outcomes of those transactions. Interviewers want to know why you’re interested in that firm, as well as the specific area of law. Linda Luong, graduate recruitment advisor at DLA Piper, says: “Where you’d stand out here is tailoring your application.” Robert Byk, partner at

AllAboutLaw.co.uk

Issue Four

Corbyn: bowing to pressure? WORDS Jack J Collins PHOTO Garry Knight

Slaughter and May, agrees, saying that applicants should be able to say specifically “why you’re interested in law, and in the law firm”. The only way you will be able to do this is if you genuinely do know why. As well as more traditional research and preparation methods, social media can be a great way to find out that tiny bit extra – make sure to follow the firms you are interviewing with on LinkedIn, Twitter and Facebook.

COMMERCIAL AWARENESS Commercial awareness seems to be the aspect of interviews that people most worry about. Firms expect a level of interest in business and people who are able to exhibit interest in the area of law they want to go into, but mostly just commercially: how business works, how the world works and how law firms function as businesses. Lisa Powell, graduate recruitment advisor at Weil says: “Display a level of commercial awareness – candidates who are going into commercial law should have a natural interest in being commercially aware and be looking to build on this; understanding the markets and how it would relate to law practices in the market they’re applying to.” Firms will not expect detailed knowledge of the stock market, or of products such as Bermudan flip-flop derivatives, because those are things that they can teach you.

MAKE THE MOST OF THE OPPORTUNITIES AT UNIVERSITY Use your time at university wisely: there are plenty of opportunities with which you can hone new skills, make contacts, and add to the list of things you can discuss at an interview or an assessment centre. Sophie Tughan-Jones, head of graduate recruitment at Freshfields says: “Keep an eye out for any opportunities that there are to meet firms and representatives from different legal areas. That said, balance it with the opportunities that this new university environment offers and opens up to you.” If you fancy giving something back to the community at the same time, Linda Luong at DLA Piper says: “Another way to get the most out of your first year at uni is to do lots of volunteering. Help out at places such as Citizens Advice Bureaus and Legal Advice Centres.” You could also get involved in pro bono work,

either through your university or independently. Work can range from advising in law clinics, to delivering presentations in schools , to advocacy work; allowing you the opportunity to meet a diverse range of people and clients, help with reallife casework and gain hands-on experience of drafting and researching. All of these things will ensure you stand out at an interview or assessment cenre, as well as standing you in good stead for your future career in the legal industry. Linda Luong says you shouldn’t limit yourself to law-related activities though, anything can be helpful - it’s about finding what interests you, and what you can gain by taking part: “You’ll also find that at university there are so many societies that you can join,” she says. “They don’t all have to be law-related. What you should be looking at is what you’re taking from it and what skills you’re gaining.”

BE RELEVANT TO THE FIRM It’s imperative that you know your strengths, the value of your previous experience, and how they could apply to the firm: learn how to talk about them and how to demonstrate their use in a practical way – how you would use them at that firm. Robert Byk at Slaughter and May says: “Work experience doesn’t need to be legal, but should show your strengths.” Danielle Owens, head of recruitment at Shoosmiths, agrees: “Anything from working in a bar to working in a shop can be tailored to make it relevant to your scenario. Use your experience – tailor it to show your awareness of what good client service looks like – that’s always a positive attribute.”

BE PREPARED TO TALK ABOUT THE DETAILS OF YOUR CV & COVERING LETTER Robert Byk at Slaughter and May says: “A clear CV and clear covering letter are important – show who you are and what makes you tick, what you find enthusing and exciting.” If this is there in your application (and if you’ve got to the interview or assessment centre stage, then it should be!) then you must be prepared to talk about it with your assessors, and expand on it. Take a copy of the CV and covering letter with you so that you can check through them at any point should you forget anything in the lead up to the interview. There is little worse than being asked a question about something that you wrote on your application and you can’t remember it - make sure you can jog your memory with hard copies in front of you.

AllAboutLaw.co.uk

hen Jeremy Corbyn was sworn in to the privy council this month, he defied an age-old convention of kneeling before the Queen, sparking outrage in the tabloid press once again. Becoming a member of the council allows the Labour leader to receive confidential security briefings, and also allows him to use the title ‘Right Honourable’, should he wish. The initiation ceremony, according to the Royal Encyclopedia, typically involves kneeling on a stool before the Queen, at which point they will extend “his or her right hand, palm upwards, and, taking the Queen’s hand lightly, will kiss it with no more than a touch of the lips”. There is protocol for a republican to find a way round this tradition, as displayed by the late MP and prominent republican, Tony Benn, who wrote in his diaries that he had kissed his own thumb rather than the Queen’s hand. Before the ceremony, Corbyn told ITV News that he was not expecting to have to kneel as a part of the ceremony: “I expect to be nominated to the privy council and that’s it.” It has been made clear

Corbyn may now able to push forward, free from accusations of shirking tradition, and armed with the classified information made available to Privy Council members.

that Buckingham Palace does not force privy council members to go through procedures that they are not comfortable with and as such, the Labour leader was given exemption from the kneeling part of the initiation rite. What is important, however, is that Corbyn has become a member of this council, because of the classified information it gives him access to as leader of the opposition – information which he would not have been able to obtain otherwise. Like fellow republicans Benn, Michael Foot and Neil Kinnock before him, he has sworn an oath required of all council members, to defend Queen and crown and not to know of any attempts to remove her from that seat. Ultimately, perhaps most importantly is that Corbyn’s Labour can now attempt to push forward with their more important political priorities, without being accused of shirking tradition. Commentators have suggested it is perhaps a sign that the Labour leader is coming to understand that these gestures are little more than mere symbolism and that his political credentials are not challenged by making those gestures which are expected of him; that he will be able to get on with his job of challenging the Conservatives on the issues that the party expects him to, without the tabloids all over his back. The old adage of choosing one’s battles carefully springs to mind.

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.