Biblio Magazine Issue 8 by EPC Studio

Issue 8 - Summer 2019

Biblio Berkshire • Buckinghamshire • Oxfordshire Incorporated Law Society

Penguins win Junior Lawyer's Annual Mixed Netball Page 5

In this issue: The 47th Joint Planning Law Conference, Oxford • Probate and estate administration • Charitable gifts: transforming property into community impact & more...

www.bbolawsoc.org.uk

Issue 8 - Summer 2019

From the President... When you read this I will no longer be the President of the BB&O. Our AGM is on the 8th July 2019 and I hope that our current Vice-President Jane Whitfield will have been voted into the post. That being so I wish her the very best for her term of office and pledge my support.

Berkshire Buckinghamshire Oxfordshire Incorporated Law Society Magazine

Contents

The change that has taken place in our training requirements has been an issue for us and many other Local Law Societies. But as we are coming to understand as a profession the need for training is as important as ever. We have to focus on what we need to be able to deliver the services needed by our clients. With support of our members we can still offer training needs at competitive rates and will endeavour to do so. I urge you to continue with support.

From the President

Committee Members

Additionally we are planning more social events. The Annual Dinner and Awards Presentation will take place on 27th September 2019 at the Oxford Spires Hotel. Please consider nominations of lawyers who you believe are worthy of recognition and come along and enjoy supper and a good social evening. We also plan a Carol Night, Quiz Night and more!

BBO Members

Junior Lawyers Mixed Netball Competition

The 47th Joint Planning Law conference

If you have articles you’d like to put into this Magazine then please let us know.

Transforming property into community impact

Wales & Scotland Seeing Fastest Growth in Charitable Bequests

Consumer attitudes to gifts in Wills

Probate and estate administration

AI: Friend or foe?

Non-Compliance: The implications

The need for early cost advice on a building project

Experts and their evidence: some recent guidance

Is Your Legal Software Ready to Remain Compliant in 2019?

LEAP celebrates 2,000 UK Law Firms

Navigating the challenges ahead

Solving the back office puzzle

I wish you a good summer. Simon Stone President, BB&O Law Society 2018/2019

Published by:

Advertising

Accounts

Legal Notice

EAST PARK COMMUNICATIONS Ltd.

Simon Castell

Tony Kay

Unit 27a, Price St. Business Centre,

Laura Seymour

None of the editorial or photographs may be Published

reproduced without prior written permission

Managing Editor

Summer

from the publishers. East Park Communications

Denise Green

2019

Ltd would like to point out that all editorial

simon@eastparkcommunications.co.uk

Design

the originators and may or may not reflect the

www.eastparkcommunications.co.uk

David Coffey

Communications Ltd.

opinions of East Park Communications Ltd.

Price St., Birkenhead, Wirral, Merseyside CH41 4JQ

comment and articles are the responsibility of

Tel: 0151 651 2776

Correct at time of going to press.

www.bbolawsoc.org.uk

membership

Berks, Bucks & Oxfordshire Incorporated Law Society

Members Current Members Reynolds Parry Jones LLP 10 Easton Street High Wycombe Bucks HP11 1NP Samuel Baker Kalbir Gill Robert Hill Gillian Humphreys Charlotte Kerns Graham King Roberick McCulloch Margaret Marshall Ashley Minott Deborah Yeates Rowberrys Sherwood House 104 High Street Crowthorne Berkshire RG45 7AX Nilu Bhatti

Royds Withy King North Bailey House New Inn Hall Street Oxford OX1 2EA Ian Carrier Richard Coleman Rosie Hodgetts Stephanie Hopcroft Louise Huckstep Tracy Norris-Evans Edward Pilling Chandler Ray 22 West Street Buckingham MK18 1HG Chris Chandler Diana Davis Oxfordshire City Council Directorate for Resources County Hall New Road Oxford OX1 1ND

Gabbitas Robins The Old House West Street Marlow Bucks SL7 2LS John Gabbitas Stephen Robins Gordons Winter Hill House Marlow Reach Station Approach Marlow Bucks SL7 1NT Keith Gordon Boyes Turner Abbots House Abbey Street Reading RG1 3BG W. Gornall-King

Blandy & Co LLP 1 Friar Street Reading Berkshire RG1 1DA Manisha Bhula Campbell Hooper & Co Apex House 116 London Road Sunningdale Berkshire SL5 0DJ Stephen Aldred Wilson & Bird Ideal House Exchange Street Aylesbury Bucks HP20 1QY Paul Bird Browns First Floor Albert House Queen Victoria Road High Wycombe Bucks HP11 1AG

Peter Clark Nick Graham Angela Mills Christian Smith Julia Taplin Carol Watts Blake Morgan Seacourt Tower West Way Oxford 0X2 0FB John Cole Olivia Shenton-Taylor Allan Janes 21-23 Easton Street High Wycombe Bucks HP11 1NT Peter Collier Clive Hitchen Lennons Chess Chambers 2 Broadway Court Chesham HP5 1EG

Sarah Bruce John Cunliffe Julia Kent Claire Simmock Barrett & Co Salisbury House 54 Queens Road Reading Berkshire RG1 4AZ Hilary Buckle Justin Sadler Black Law Suite One Acorn House Straight Bit Flackwell Heath Bucks HP10 9LS Vanessa Bull-Domnican

Frazine Johnson Old Bank Chambers 32 Station Parade Denham Bucks UB9 5EW George Curran Frazine Johnson Blandy & Blandy 1 Friar Street Reading RG1 1DA

Bastian Lloyd Morris 201 Sovereign Court Witan Gate Central Milton Keynes MK9 2HP Syvil Lloyd-Morris Carol Lloyd-Morris

Cordelia Hall Robert Harrison Darren Oliver

CRS Ltd The Old Courtyard 11 Lower Cookham Road Maidenhead Berks SL6 8JN Peter Sandringham

Barrett & Thomson One Pegasus Court 25 Herschel Street Slough SL1 1TQ Kate Matharoo Lightfoots LLP 1-3 High Street Thame Oxfordshire OX9 2BX J Middleton Lee-Chadwick 14 Market Square Witney Oxon OX28 6BE

Donna Griffin Winkworth Sherwood 16 Beaumont Street Oxford OX1 2LZ

Mark Pryer

Sue Morton Horwood & James 7 Temple Square Aylesbury Bucks HP20 2QB Rebecca Oliver John Reddington Jill Swift Alison Thorpe Jonathan Warbey

B P Collins Collins House 32-38 Station Road Gerrards Cross Bucks SL9 8EL

Charsley Harrison Windsor House Victoria Street Windsor Berks SL4 1EN

Chris Hardy

Paul Owen

Kidd Rapinet Ground Floor Walker House George Street Aylesbury Bucks HP20 2HU Andrew Hawkins Cyrus Medora

Field Seymour Parkes 1 London Street Reading RG1 4PN

Parrott & Coales 14 Bourbon Street Aylesbury Bucks HP20 2RS Peter Sauvain Martin D Silverman Collins House 32-38 Station Road Gerrards Cross Bucks SL9 8EL Martin Silverman Peter A C Sloan 4 The Courtyard Denmark Street Wokingham Berkshire RG40 2AZ Peter Sloan M B Law 8 Cheap Street Newbury Berkshire RG14 5DD A Templeman Kingsley David Shelton House 4 High Street Woburn Sands Milton Keynes MK17 8SD

Mercers 50 New Street Henley on Thames Oxfordshire RG9 2BX Peter Hopkins Paul Stott

Geoffrey Leaver 251 Upper Third Street Bouverie Square Central Milton Keynes MK9 1DR Richard Willis

Jeremy Parkes Katharine Riley Challenor & Son Stratton House Bath Street Abingdon Oxfordshire OX14 3LA Neville Pegram Trevor Pegram Stephen Pegram

Jackie Waller 10 Kingfishers Wantage Oxfordshire OX12 7JL Jackie Waller Mrs R J Ward 20 Dovecote Haddenham Bucks HP17 8BP

Simon Dimmick Dentons The Pinnacle 170 Midsummer Boulevard Milton Keynes MK9 1FE

Charles Coleman LLP Beaumont House 28-30 Beaumont Road Windsor SL4 1JP

Pellmans 1 Abbey Street Eynsham Witney Oxfordshire OX29 4TB

John Humphreys James Fairbairn Freeths LLP 5000 Oxford Business Park South Oxford OX4 2BH

John Welch & Stammers 24 Church Green Road Witney Oxon OX28 4AT Kerry Joels

Sarah Foster Lesley Pollock

Gurmeet Khauraud

Wilkins Lincoln House 6 Church Street Aylesbury Bucks HP20 2QS

Simon Stone Andy Coyle Andrew King

Justin Bradley Franklins Walton House 15 Ock Street Abingdon Oxfordshire OX14 5AN

Kite Griffin Brooke House High Street Bracknell RG12 1LL

Fort Solicitors 271 Farnham Road Slough SL2 1HA

Adrian Pellman Gavin Clark BPS 85 High Street Chesham Bucks HP5 1DE Angela Phelan

Mrs R J Ward Gillian Carson 2 Ridge Hall Close Caversham Reading RG4 7EP Mrs Gillian Carson

www.bbolawsoc.org.uk

JUNIOR LAWYERS

BBO Junior Lawyers annual mixed Netball

The eventual winners were the Penguins (pictured left), representing BDB Pitmans LLP. Many thanks go to Conveyancing Data Services for sponsoring the event and the school for hosting.

The BBO Junior Lawyers Division held their annual mixed Netball competition at Kendrick School in Reading on May 30th. Judging by the photos there were clearly some hard fought matches.

www.bbolawsoc.org.uk

MEMBERSHIP

The 47th Joint Planning Law Conference, Oxford 13-15 September 2019 – Book your place now.

he Joint Planning Law Conference, often referred to as ‘the Oxford conference’, provides the setting for vibrant discussions covering the latest issues affecting the planning industry. It’s attended each year by town planners, chartered surveyors, solicitors, barristers and developers. If you’re interested in planning and environmental issues, you’ll be in good company. THE PROGRAMME In 2019 the economic landscape remains uncertain and therefore both the possibilities and challenges ahead, are endless. This year's conference theme, “Shining a Light”, is picked up in papers which will variously light a beacon for the promotion of health in planning and for landscape-led design, unravel the intricacies of sunlight and daylight assessment, explain how to do Joint Planning, illuminate what might lie at the end of the Brexit tunnel, and highlight recent developments in enforcement and case law. Our prestigious speakers include: Sir Malcolm Grant CBE, University of York; Louise Wyman, Mayor’s Design Advisor, West Midlands Combined Authority (WMCA); Annabel Graham Paul, Francis Taylor Building and Gordon Ingram, Senior Partner, GIA; Paul Barnard, Service Director, Strategic Planning & Infrastructure, Plymouth City Council; David Elvin QC, Landmark Chambers; Dr Louise Brooke-Smith, Partner and UK Head of Development and Strategic Planning , Arcadis LLP; Daniel Farrand, Legal Director, Mishcon de Reya LLP; and Estelle Dehon, Cornerstone Barristers “JPLC is the annual opportunity to let some of our industry’s best practitioners remind us why we chose our careers in the first place.” “It is the key seminar of the year for planners and lawyers. Anyone serious about planning should make the time and effort to go.”

To book and for further details visit: www.jplc. org or email lucinda@jplc.org (early bird fee available till the end of June)

The Venue: New College, Oxford

www.bbolawsoc.org.uk

Articles

â&#x20AC;&#x153;Probably the highest quality, best value, most fun planning conference of the year.â&#x20AC;?

At the forefront of planning Bringing together leading experts from across the planning professions, the JPLC has a long-standing reputation for combining cutting-edge insight and lively debate with a friendly atmosphere and beautiful surroundings. Early bird fee is available till the end of June. View the full programme and book online at www.jplc.org or email lucinda@jplc.org

www.bbolawsoc.org.uk

advertorial

Charitable gifts: transforming property into community impact

hilanthropically minded clients may be able to do more for their community than they think. Property, where it exceeds everyday needs, can be a powerful means of supporting causes close to a client’s heart. Every client’s own circumstances are different, and for many, charitable giving starts to become an interest later in a career or life cycle. Several research reports* suggest that wealthy individuals would like their professional advisors to talk to them more proactively about their charitable options, and it cannot be assumed that successful people want to wait until they have died before their legacy can be felt. So how can clients unlock the value of a property asset whilst ensuring they remain able to meet the future unknown needs of their families and business interests? Different types of asset Charities can accept gifts of property and with their long experience of stewarding donor funds, Community Foundations can be a great place to start for clients who know they want to give something back. In particular, Community Foundations are always happy to discuss all the different ways that enable anyone to make a genuine and lasting difference in their local area. Gifting a property to a charity has its benefits for the charity and for the donor. The charity will not have to pay stamp duty land tax and the donor has a potential capital gains benefit.

A donor can also be an existing charity client, as in this example. Following a strategic review, the trustees of a charity based in Oxfordshire, approved a key decision that would see them federated with their national body. This left

trustees of charity Relate - Oxfordshire with a dilemma – how best to optimise the value of a property that they had owned for the past 20 years. Their priority was to ensure it continued to benefit their local community, here in Oxfordshire.

Relate trustees quickly established that Oxfordshire Community Foundation (OCF) could help them achieve this aspiration. (Susie Wood and David Gaulton of Relate Oxfordshire – pictured above with Jayne Woodley – CEO OCF) Properties like the one gifted by Relate are a major asset to a Community Foundation. When held as part of an endowment, they become a source of funding and support that can help local good causes in perpetuity. Professional advisors who are aware of this have found it helpful when working with clients who are considering how they might have a lasting impact on their local community. Community Foundation expertise Community Foundations across the Thames Valley have experience of accepting generous gifts of land, property, and art, as well as share transfers. They are skilled at working alongside advisors on behalf of their clients to consider what assets other than cash might be available that they could gift as a donation. Community Foundations can provide template documentation to ensure the process happens efficiently and at a time that is convenient. Tax efficiency A property can be transferred direct to a Community Foundation, leaving them with the decision whether to realise its value via open market sale or to retain

for a charitable purpose. As the Community Foundation is a registered charity no stamp duty land tax is payable. If an individual is gifting the property, any Capital Gains Tax (CGT) liability is also not payable by the donor. Furthermore, the full value of the property gift, without any deduction of CGT, would be eligible for higher rates of income tax relief. Value to the community Donors like Relate or individuals can gift the value of the property into a ring-fenced fund within a Community Foundation. This allows a donor to make the charitable gift as soon as they would like to, yet also gives them time and space to reflect on what causes they would like to support. Typically, Community Foundations will prepare, agree and sign a memorandum of understanding that establishes with the donor how they wish their donations, to be utilised. Depending on the above, Community Foundations could use the property in a variety of ways to meet local needs. As an unrestricted gift, as a donor advised contribution towards causes in a particular geographic area or as a community asset to provide accommodation for a charity such as a homeless shelter, adult or child day care centres. Note that Community Foundations cannot give financial or legal advice, and always recommend that clients discuss with their professional advisor before making any decisions. To find out more about transferring property and non- cash assets to charity, contact your local community foundation: • Berkshire www.berkshirecf.org • Buckinghamshire www.heartofbucks.org • Milton Keynes www.mkcommunityfoundation.co.uk • Oxfordshire www.oxfordshire.org * CAF: The Art of Adaptation, 2015; Philanthropy Impact: The Changing Role of Professional Advisors, 2016

www.bbolawsoc.org.uk

CHARITY

Wales and Scotland are Seeing Fastest Growth in Charitable Bequests Rob Cope, Director

fit around their wishes to look after family and friends, a charitable bequest can be a surprisingly easy and efficient way to give.” Currently, one in six probated estates include a charitable gift, but with the latest consumer tracking poll indicating that four in ten of the over 40s would like to do so, Remember A Charity believes there is significant potential for further growth. Challenges of a post-Brexit world

nheritance Tax affects a small proportion of estates and yet the tax incentive for charitable estates has a huge impact. Why does it matter Wales and Scotland are Seeing Fastest Growth in Charitable Bequests Charities in Wales and Scotland are seeing faster income growth from gifts in Wills than other parts of the UK according to a new research report published by the 200-strong charity coalition Remember A Charity.

The UK Legacy Fundraising Market 2019 summarises income from gifts in Wills to the nation’s top legacy-earning fundraising charities, exploring the impact of the recession and subsequent economic recovery. While charities across the UK have seen legacy income growth of 10% over the past decade, the smaller markets of Wales and Scotland have risen by 23% and 35% respectively. Health charities receive the largest share of donations, but the market is diversifying with many smaller and community-based organisations now being named in Wills. Overseas aid, environmental and services charities are increasing their space in the market, while those in the religious and social care fields are losing ground.

Rob Cope, director of Remember A Charity, says: “Charitable bequests are often linked with the largest household name charities, but the market is growing and changing with non-profit organisations of all sizes and causes coming to the table. For many of these charities and their beneficiaries, a legacy gift can be completely transformational.” Importance of legacy giving Underlining the importance of bequests to charities across the country, the research finds that legacies now account for 28% of the UK’s voluntary donations. For the top 1,100 fundraising charities alone, this equates to over £2.2 billion of vital charitable funding. For charities such as RNLI, legacies fund 6 in 10 lifeboats and a third of Cancer Research UK’s lifesaving research. Cope adds: “As awareness about legacy giving increases and the professional Will-writing community continues to make their clients available of the option of including a gift in their Will, we’re seeing a long-term increase in the proportion of estates including a charitable gift1. “There is growing appetite for people to support the good causes they care about long after they are gone. Once supporters understand that gifts in Wills don’t have to be particularly large and can

Legacy income patterns tend to mirror the shape of the economy and reflect the number of estates going through probate. When property prices increase, inevitably estate and legacy values do too. While the report highlights that the 2008 recession led to a notable fall in income to charities, the market was quick to recover and growth continued in the subsequent years. Looking to the future, the coalition expressed some caution about the years ahead. With the impact of Brexit as yet unknown and a rapidly ageing population facing rising care costs, estate values may well suffer and that could have a considerable impact on the nation’s charities. Cope adds: “Charities are increasingly reliant on gifts in Wills and although the number of donors is on the rise, we can see that legacy income is being stretched across a broader marketplace. The charity sector is likely to feel that stretch all the more as we deal with the uncertain economic future of a post-Brexit world. It’s vital that charities work collaboratively with the legal sector and government to normalise legacy giving and provide a more stable basis for this vital income stream for the years ahead.” The proportion of probated estates including a charitable donation increase from 12.2% in 2007 to 15.7% in 2017. (Source: Smee and Ford).

www.bbolawsoc.org.uk

CHARITY

Consumer tracking indicates shift in attitudes to gifts in wills • 40% of over 40s say they are happy to leave a gift to charity in their Will • 65% say it’s acceptable to leave all your estate to charity • 70% think that people should tell their children if they intend to leave a ‘reasonable’ gift to charity

riday 24 May 2019 LONDON, UK – Public attitudes towards gifts in Wills have become more positive over the past decade, according to the latest UK consumer tracking poll commissioned by Remember A Charity. The OnePoll survey (March-April 2019) found that 40% of people aged 40+ would be happy to give a small percentage of their estate to charity, up from 35% in 2008. Almost two thirds (65%) said that it was acceptable to leave your entire estate to charity if you wish. The large majority (70%) of respondents felt

that people should tell their children if they intended to leave a ‘reasonable sum of money’ to charity in their Will. Only one in four (26%) thought their family would object to them making such a gift, down from 31% in 2008. Rob Cope, director of Remember A Charity, says: “We’ve seen a real shift in attitudes in recent years with the public indicating that they are more open to the concept of legacy giving and this is a positive sign for the years ahead. “While legacy income will inevitably fluctuate to reflect wider economic trends, the public’s propensity to give is the key driving factor for market growth. This poll suggests not only that the public is more willing to leave a gift, but that they have a clearer understanding of legacy giving and think people should be free to do what they want with their estates. “People still do worry about how their family might feel if they leave a charitable gift in their Will and this underlines the importance of encouraging

potential legators to discuss their wishes with their family, reducing the risk of dispute.” In 2008, the majority of respondents said that it was better to give money when you are alive than through a legacy (63%) and that close relatives have a right to the majority of an estate (72%). Today, according to the latest survey findings, those views are held by a minority, at 47% and 41% respectively. Cope adds: “This new level of understanding of legacies undoubtedly reflects how hard charities and the legal sector have been working to communicate positively and collaboratively about the impact of gifts in Wills, handling the topic with sensitivity. The challenge now for Remember A Charity – and a key pillar of our new three-year strategy – is to review what can be done to shift the emphasis on from building awareness to inspiring supporters into taking action and writing charitable gifts into their Wills.” For more information, see: www.rememberacharity.org.uk

Consumer tracking polls A OnePoll survey of 2,000 UK respondents aged 40+ was carried out in March-April 2019, with responses gathered online. Questions replicated those carried out through a TNS poll in May-June 2008. Both surveys were commissioned by Remember A Charity to help inform the campaign’s future strategy. Summary response table Statement

Agree / Disagree

2019 Aggregate

2008 Aggregate

I am happy to give a small percentage of my Will as a gift to a charity after I have included my family

Agree Disagree

40% 30%

35% 43%

I think it is acceptable to leave all your money to a charity of your choice if you wish

Agree Disagree

65% 12%

64% 22%

Children have a right to their parents' estate

Agree Disagree

41% 29%

62% 22%

I think your closest family have a right to the majority of the estate

Agree Disagree

41% 26%

72% 14%

My family would object to me leaving a reasonable sum of money to a charity

Agree Disagree

26% 33%

31% 47%

I think that you should tell your children if you plan to leave a reasonable sum of money to a charity

Agree Disagree

70% 8%

69% 14%

It is better to leave a gift in your will to a charity that donate small sums of money as you will not miss the money when you die

Agree Disagree

24% 19%

25% 45%

It is better to give money while you are alive - that way you know what happens to money

Agree Disagree

47% 9%

63% 14%

Charities depend on legacies to continue the work they do

Agree Disagree

58% 7%

66% 14%

Legacies to charities generally tend to be for large amounts

Agree Disagree

31% 16%

35% 33%

NB This summary table shows only the aggregate agree / disagree scores, excluding those that selected ‘neither agree/disagree’.

www.bbolawsoc.org.uk

Articles

Probate and estate administration

Joe Goodwin explains how considering the impact of exchange rates and the foreign exchange sector can benefit practitioners and their beneficiaries.

lobalisation has meant that it is now increasingly likely that beneficiaries of estates reside overseas or that estates often contain overseas assets or shares - the deceased may have owned a holiday home in France for example that will need to be sold and the proceeds repatriated to the UK.

Process The process is straightforward; the Spanish Lawyer transfers the euros to Currency Index’s euro account, Currency Index convert the funds as above and transfer to the UK solicitor’s GBP client account. Same-day transfer and no transfer fees.

Taking French property as an example, once the French property is sold the practitioner dealing with the administration of the estate will arrange for the Euros to be repatriated back to the firm’s UK client account to be distributed accordingly. One element in this process that is often overlooked when the euros are transferred from the French solicitors account and converted into GBP, is the exchange rate at which banks convert the currency. It’s not always obvious that banks make large profits on foreign exchange but the key consideration for practitioners is the large margin between the buy and sell rate. There is a way to avoid these large fees - if a currency specialist is used to convert the Euros to GBP instead of the banks, beneficiaries can gain up to 4% more of the amount transferred. This doesn’t sound like much, but on a transaction of €300K, the beneficiary gains up to €12K extra. The same logic applies for larger amounts and for currency transfers going out of the UK as well as coming in to the UK.

Security of funds To ensure that client funds are safe and secure, Currency Index operate with segregated client accounts, are regulated by the FCA as an authorised payment institute and regulated by HMRC.

Case Study - November 2018 The beneficiary of an estate resides in England and is due to inherit a large sum of €1.66M following the sale of a Spanish property.

Currency Index specialise in working with Law firms to ensure that international currency transfers are made in the best interest of the client. Transfer processes are simple and straightforward and can be implemented without adding complexity to current systems.

By using Currency Index to convert the currency instead of the bank high street bank, the beneficiary is over £36K better off, (which is enough to cover administration fees)!

Joe Goodwin is Business Development Manager at Currency Index. Joe.goodwin@currencyindex.co.uk 01923 725 738

Amount in EUR

Exchange Rate

Amount beneficiary receives

Bank

1,660,000

1.1900

£1,394,957

Currency Index

1,660,000

1.1600

£1,431,034

www.bbolawsoc.org.uk

advertorial

AI: Friend or Foe? by Adam Bullion, General Manager of Marketing, InfoTrack

henever the words ‘Artificial Intelligence’ are spoken, rooms fall quiet and images of Blade Runnerlike scenes are conjured in people’s mind. Such dystopian views have been propelled by sci-fi films filling us with fears androids will take over the world and with it, human’s place in society. Whether you support self-driving cars or embrace digital assistants, AI is technology that only continues to grow in the modern world. AI encompasses a plethora of functions, from machine learning to speech recognition and personalisation, fast becoming a feature of most digital services that often passes by unnoticed

by users. As is usually the case when all goes well, we don’t notice anything. However, disquiet around new technology isn’t a recent advent. Mathematicians were once fraught with concern around how the humble calculator would become a threat to their jobs, however the omnipresent tool is now built into every smartphone and most people wouldn’t dream of performing longhand calculations. Just as the calculator created efficiencies for mathematicians and accountants, AI can free up time from process-based tasks for solicitors. The SRA recently published a paper reviewing innovations in technology within the legal sector. The report found AI will help with taskdriven work, creating efficiency and gifting solicitors more time to focus on complex tasks. Increased productivity in administrative areas of the business enables firms to focus on the more human aspects of their firm, affording them more time to build relationships with

their clients and their experience as it’s the human element of roles that AI will struggle to replace. While technology takes care of the nitty-gritty, you can provide a personalised service that will build your brand reputation and help your firm to grow. It’s important to consider that we will take stepping stones towards implementing AI. At InfoTrack, our approach has been to take that approach in applying AI, implementing machine learning to our services to identify trends and patterns, ultimately working toward returning searches to our clients faster, leading to greater client satisfaction. Allowing AI to become part of your business strategy in any of its various forms shouldn’t be perceived as a threat, but instead embraced to allow roles to grow into more fruitful human-centric functions, giving rise to greater customer satisfaction, not the rise of the robots.

www.bbolawsoc.org.uk

advertorial

Non Compliance With an Enforcement Notice – the Implications

olicitor Kayleigh Chapman, in Blandy & Blandy LLP’s leading Planning & Environmental Law team, explains what happens if you fail to comply with an enforcement notice I have previously published an article on the grounds on which an Enforcement Notice can be appealed. If an appeal is submitted in respect of an Enforcement Notice (“EN”) the effect of the EN is suspended until the outcome of that appeal. Accordingly, the steps required to be taken by an EN are not so required to be done whilst an appeal progresses. In addition, the Local Planning Authority (“LPA”) cannot prosecute for failing to comply with the terms of the EN during the appeal. What happens if I do not appeal? Compliance with an EN does not discharge the requirements in that notice (Section 181 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (“the Act”)). Compliance with an EN is a continuing obligation and if steps are taken at a later date which contravene the EN the LPA can take steps to prosecute for that noncompliance. Further, once an EN takes effect it will be registered as a Local Land Charge. If the EN is complied with it will not be removed as a Local Land Charge but will, or should be, marked as complied with. If you do comply with the requirements of the EN some LPAs permit an application to be made to them (with a fee) to request that the EN is withdrawn. It is however highly unlikely that an LPA will withdraw an EN unless the breach is very unlikely or impossible to occur again. If you do not appeal an EN and the time for appealing it passes then you lose the right to appeal the notice at a later date. The Planning Inspectorate has no discretion to vary the time limit in order to permit a late appeal of an EN. If you continue to allow the breach of planning to occur and do not take the

steps required by the EN to comply with its requirements, an offence will have been committed. The LPA may therefore decide to prosecute you for non-compliance with the notice. The LPA is not required to take steps to prosecute, it is a discretionary action and the LPA may not consider it expedient to do so. However, if you are prosecuted and found guilty then the possible fine which might be ordered is unlimited. At this stage it is too late to argue that planning permission should be granted for the unauthorised development, that the terms of the EN are too onerous or other grounds which would otherwise be available at the appeal stage. There are very limited grounds on which a defence can be advanced. For more details please go to: https://www.blandy.co.uk/about/ news-and-insights/insights/planning-law-andenforcement-notices.

time. The amount that the defendant would have benefitted from the continuing offence could be calculated as: £500.00 x 3 x 12. The Order could therefore require a payment of £18,000.00. This is in addition to the sentencing fine. For further information or legal advice, please contact law@blandy.co.uk or call 0118 951 6800. This article is intended for the use of clients and other interested parties. The information contained in it is believed to be correct at the date of publication, but it is necessarily of a brief and general nature and should not be relied upon as a substitute for specific professional advice.

Proceeds of Crime If a prosecution results in conviction then the LPA can apply for a confiscation order under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. If an Order is made it will require the defendant to pay the amount the Court determines the convicted defendant has benefitted from the offence. Such applications by LPAs are increasingly common and if an Order is made, the LPA is able to receive up to 37.5% of the receipts from any such Order. Example A house had been divided into three flats and an Enforcement Notice is served requiring the house to be returned to use as a single dwelling house. The owner does not appeal the notice and further does not comply with the notice. The LPA successfully prosecutes the owner for non-compliance for the notice. The house has been divided into flats for 48 months with 12 of those months being after the Enforcement Notice was served. The owner has received a rent of £500.00 per month for each of the three flats during that

Kayleigh Chapman is a solicitor in Blandy & Blandy's nationally ranked Planning & Environmental law team. She joined the team upon qualification in 2019, having trained at the firm. Kayleigh initially joined Blandy & Blandy LLP in 2013 as legal secretary in their Planning & Environmental law team, after graduating with a Law degree from the University of Sussex. In 2014 she became legal assistant in the team, before undertaking her training contract. Planning magazine’s 2019 Planning Law Survey ranked Blandy & Blandy LLP among the UK's top 25 planning law firms, while the firm is also highly ranked in the UK's leading guides to law firms, Chambers UK and The Legal 500. Kayleigh completed her LPC at the University of Law (Guildford), obtaining a distinction and receiving two academic prizes.

www.bbolawsoc.org.uk

The need for early cost advice on a building project A

t a time when finance for construction projects appears to be less available than in more buoyant times, it is now more important than ever to seek construction cost advice at the very start of a project. This helps to establish if a project is financially viable or not and, more importantly, helps the client to decide if the project is to proceed before too much abortive time and money is spent. The first and most important step in a construction project is as stated to ascertain financial viability. This applies to both a developer led project, where the aim is to generate profit for shareholders, and an end user project, where the aim is to provide a new or improved facility from which to operate. Generally even if a new or refurbished building is not going to be sold for profit it should still be financially tested to establish that it would be profitable if it was required to be sold at a later date. Exceptions to this are buildings of specific uses such as hospitals, schools, theatres, R&D facilities etc. It is not necessary to produce detailed drawings or specifications to enable a preliminary costing to be prepared. A â&#x20AC;&#x153;typicalâ&#x20AC;? starting point would be to establish an indicative area for the proposed building. This is worked out by understanding the functions required that the building will envelope. These functions can be given areas based on sizes of equipment or number of people and then added together; with an allowance for corridors, toilets etc; with the result being an indicative overall building area. To this area a cost per foot squared for buildings of a similar nature is applied which establishes an indicative overall building cost. The construction industry still works primarily in feet rather than metric when discussing building area. The indicative overall building cost can then be inserted into the project financial appraisal which in simple terms compares value against cost. The difference in financial terms between value and cost is profit. Funding institutions such as banks or pension funds will expect to see a financial appraisal showing a reasonable profit prior to making a funding offer. An early cost assessment also importantly sets the benchmark to which the ongoing project design and costing can be reconciled. If the client gives the go ahead to proceed with a project; taking into account the initial costing work as part of the decision process; it is essential that everyone working on the project is aware of the initial cost and what is included within it so that effective project cost control is established from the start. To find out more, contact Jon Green MRICS, director of JGPMK Limited on 01908 526976 or email on jongreen@jgpmklimited.com. by Jon Green MRICS

www.bbolawsoc.org.uk

EXPERT WITNESS

Experts and their evidence: some recent guidance of the supplemental reports is to enable the experts to comment on and express their further views upon the points on which they remain in disagreement, having had the benefit of a proper experts’ discussion at which they can properly understand the point of view of the opposing expert. Thomas Crockett

e are half way through the year and there have been a number of interesting first instance decisions which should be of interest to any litigator involved with the use of expert witnesses. It is clear that the authors of these judgments have sought to provide some sound practical guidance. I shall attempt to distil this into five things to think about, when discussing these authorities and others of no more than about a year’s vintage. 1. Failures by experts to adhere to the orders of the Court could have dire consequences The judgment of Mr Justice Males in Mayr & Ors v CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang LLP [2018] EWHC 3669 (Comm) is one which caused quite a stir amongst litigators when it was published at the end of January 2019. Here, the Court effectively struck out large portions of the Claimants’ case (said to be worth several hundred million Euros) without peremptory order or warnings (i.e. no ‘unless order’). When this issue was raised by counsel for the Claimants, Males J held that “...a party is not entitled to disregard the rules, secure in the knowledge that until an unless order is made it will always get a second chance”! This matter came before the Court on 14 December 2018 ahead of trial due to commence on 22 January 2019. It was argued by the Defendant that Professor Kilgallon, the Claimants’ expert for the Turkish pharmaceutical industry, had failed to properly engage with his opposite number pursuant to the Court’s order for a joint meeting and a joint report ahead of trial. There was no application for relief from sanctions and no solution to the reality of the situation proposed by the Claimants which found favour with the Court. It was held: “13. ...When an expert fails lamentably to comply with that order the whole procedure for further expert evidence in the case is thrown into disarray. The purpose

14. That has simply not happened in this case. It is impossible for the Defendant’s expert to say anything further in a supplemental report until he knows what Professor Kilgallon has to say about the matters on which he has expressed his opinion. 16. It seems to me that the position is that the Claimants have failed to comply with the terms on which they were given permission to adduce evidence of the Turkish pharmaceutical industry in this case. The burden is on them to provide a workable solution which they have not done. It is for them too to apply for relief from sanctions. Again, they have not done so. They would need, if they were to do so, to give a proper explanation of why it is that Professor Kilgallon has taken this approach on not one but two occasions. He must have been told, he certainly should have been told after the LMM expert memorandum was produced, that this was not an acceptable way to proceed. 17. The order which I make therefore is that as matters stand the Claimants do not have permission to adduce evidence of the Turkish pharmaceutical industry at the trial. The burden will be on them to come forward, as I have said, with a proper and acceptable procedure which will include a proper joint meeting and will meet the criteria of relief from sanctions if they wish to pursue this evidence. If they have simply left it too late to do so in an acceptable way then that is something for which they must take the consequences.” The consequence of Males J’s ruling was dire in that the Claimant had no evidence upon which to prove substantial portions of their case as to quantum. The lesson is that it should be anticipated that Courts will hold litigants responsible for failures by their experts who must be required to comply with the orders of the Court, probably particularly in relation to the production of so crucial a document as a joint report following a meeting. Close and active management of experts would seem prudent to ensure compliance. In default of this, the party needing to seek relief would be advised to do so promptly and put forward practical suggestions as to how to proceed without jeopardising any trial date whilst allowing such

expert evidence to be timeously adduced with reasonable time for it to be considered. 2. Every effort should be made to cooperate to agree concise agendas for experts’ joint meetings In Saunders v Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2018] EWHC 343 (QB), the Claimant’s claim for damages in respect of an iatrogenic injury was dismissed on the basis of the expert evidence. Mrs Justice Yip in her judgment made specific comment as to the Parties’ expert colorectal surgeons’ joint reports which were produced following the inability of the Parties’ legal teams to agree a joint agenda for discussion. As a result, at trial the Court was presented with a joint report of more than 60 pages, containing repetitive questions. The Court pointed out that this approach did little to further the objective enshrined in paragraph 9.2 of the Practice Direction to CPR 35 “to agree and narrow issues”. It was held that “Parties should adopt a common sense and collaborative approach rather than allowing this stage of the litigation to become a battleground” and commented that “[p]erhaps greater input from Counsel may have assisted”. A few months later, Yip J again came across the same problem when trying the clinical negligence case of Welsh v Walsall Healthcare NHS Trust [2018] EWHC 1917 (QB). Again, the joint statements were “not as useful as they might have been. The difficulty was caused by the inability of the parties to agree a single agenda for the experts’ consideration”. Expressing certain exasperation to once again be coming across this issue and seeking an explanation, the Court was referred to paragraph 13 of the model order which states: “... solicitors shall use their best endeavours to agree the Agenda. ... In default of agreement, both versions shall be considered at the discussions. ...”. The learned judge proffered some guidance as to the proper interpretation of this at paragraph 36 of her judgment: “36. It was suggested that the form of the model order encourages more than one agenda to be sent to the experts. I cannot agree with this. The standard direction makes it clear that the solicitors are required to do their best to agree a single agenda. In the vast

www.bbolawsoc.org.uk

EXPERT WITNESS

majority of cases, any disagreement ought to be capable of resolution through a bit of give and take. It may be appropriate to insert some additional questions into the draft at the Defendant’s request. It certainly should not become routine to provide two versions which, as here, travel over much of the same ground. That approach tests the patience of the experts (and frankly of the Court); produces a lengthier joint statement; potentially increases costs and is simply not the best way to focus on the issues. I do not think that anything further needs to be said or done in this case. However, if this worrying trend continues, parties may find that Courts begin considering costs consequences.”

own view based on what had been demonstrated to him and not pursuant to any suggestion that the professional guitarists themselves were providing expert opinion upon which anything turned.

respect of which permission had been obtained) that the report of a neurosurgeon was required. The same was obtained and sent to the already instructed experts for comment.

As to the second question, Carr J was forthright in holding that this expert be allowed to express himself as he wished to and the weight to be placed upon such evidence be a matter for the trial judge. Insofar as it dealt with whether the music was more likely to have been composed on a guitar or a piano it was admissible evidence and might well be the subject of expert opinion in reply.

These dicta are likely to be of some use in justifying the use of counsel or indeed more senior fee earner time at this stage and the allowance for the same at the costs budgeting stage. It is also likely to be a useful authority for a party seeking to encourage the cooperation of their opposite number when seeking to agree agendas. An issue-based costs order is certainly possible, should such an attempt meet with intransigence.

Mrs Justice Moulder made a similar ruling in A v B [2019] EWHC 275 (Comm) in a judgment published on 15 February 2019. Here, in a case where the Defendant challenged the Claimant’s claim for an arbitral award, the Defendant took issue with parts of an expert’s report. These parts of the report purported to deal with questions of construction or the application of the law to the facts – these in part were said to cut across arguments which the Defendant would wish to make at a hearing listed for March 2019. The Defendant sought to distinguish and limit the scope of Rogers on the basis that this can be distinguished from a report about applicable foreign law. This submission was rejected with Moulder J holding that the Court of Appeal’s guidance was of general application. She held that the arguments run by the Defendant should properly be made before the judge at the March hearing and to determine the matter now would be an undesirable pre-emption.

This neurosurgical opinion did not support any causal link relevant to the injuries in this case. The neurosurgeon considered the Claimant’s ongoing symptoms to be related to a psychiatric reaction. The Court thus assessed that his evidence when viewed in isolation was limited to whether the Claimant may require certain future treatment which was a minor aspect of the Claimant’s claim. Permission to rely upon this evidence was thus refused. The Claimant was put to the expense of having to excise all reference to that evidence in the addenda reports of her other experts.

3. Think hard before seeking to restrict the scope of an opponent’s expert evidence rather than leaving the matter for trial The case of Moylett v Geldoff & Anor [2018] EWHC 893 (Ch) was an intellectual property matter litigated between members of the Boomtown Rats about the authorship and copyright of the hit ‘I don’t like Mondays’. In this case, the first Defendant applied to strike out parts of the Claimant’s expert dealing with the significant issue in the case, namely whether the music was more likely to have been composed on a guitar or a piano. It was argued that the Claimant’s report was objectionable as it contained opinions from professional guitarists, for which permission had not previously been granted and further went beyond what was permissible by expressing an opinion on the ultimate question in the proceedings. Mrs Justice Carr gave judgment on 14 March 2018. In relation to the first issue, she held that she should apply the ratio of Rogers v Hoyle [2013] EWHC 1409 (QB) and hold “it is much preferable for the Court, rather than picking through expert reports, seeking to excise individual sentences and engaging in an editing exercise, to allow the trial judge to consider the report in its entirety, assuming that it is genuine expert evidence, and to attach such weight as it sees fit at the trial to those passages in the report.” In the instant case, she held that the Claimant’s expert had been entitled to rely upon professional guitarists and was obliged to set out that he had done so in his report. It was held that although one paragraph was on the margins of admissibility, in the context of the whole report, the expert was forming his

Rogers remains of general application. Unless so obviously or grossly inappropriate that it should not be permitted to form the basis of a party’s case at trial, the Courts should allow such expert evidence as a party wishes to adduce and leave the questions of admissibility and ultimately credibility and weight to the trial judge. 4. Beware of pre-emptively obtaining and utilising expert evidence for which permission has yet to be given On an application from the Claimant for permission to rely on a report from a neurosurgeon in the clinical negligence case of Hall v Derby Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2018] EWHC 3276 (QB), Master Thornett, with unabashed frustration at the manner in which various aspects of this case had been presented over two hearings, emphasised the risks of presumptive steps being taken by a party in respect of expert evidence obtained but upon which the party had no permission to rely. The Courts are understandably and properly keen to stress the need for proportionality, expedition and proactivity in the prosecution of claims. No doubt with this in mind, when the Claimant party in this case read in the report of its neurologist (in

This appears a harsh judgment and open to criticism from the perspective of the Claimant’s solicitors. They no doubt would have felt their client exposed by not having obtained evidence recommended by another expert, if only to assist in providing a diagnosis and prognosis by eliminating a neurosurgical aetiology. This case however serves as a stark reminder that the exercise of a Court’s discretion as to expert evidence should not be taken for granted and to do so is liable to lead to costs being wasted. This must be a risk for lawyers to consider and clients and insurers to be warned about. The more liberal approach taken on the facts of Mays (a Protected Party by the Official Solicitor) v Drive Force (UK) Ltd [2019] EWHC 5 (QB) by Deputy Master Hill QC on 4 January 2019, however, shows us the specific nature of the judgment as to which experts a party would be advised to instruct. This was a high value personal injury case in which the Claimant had sustained traumatic brain injuries and orthopaedic injury pursuant to an accident at work. As a result, he lacked litigation capacity and was unable to return to paid employment. The Defendant argued that the Claimant’s life-expectancy by reason of his preexisting co-morbidities (smoking, hypertension, obesity, colitis) was an important factor in the case and sought permission to rely on expert evidence as to the same. This was opposed by the Claimant. The Deputy Master allowed the application on the grounds that this was an appropriate case for such free-standing statistical life expectancy evidence. The fact that the value of the case was high and such evidence could make a significant impact upon quantum was taken into account, as was the existing neurologist experts’ inability to address all the factors potentially pertaining to life expectancy absent the index accident. Article continues over page.

www.bbolawsoc.org.uk

EXPERT WITNESS

Experts and their evidence: continued The Court emphasised that this would not lead to the opening of any floodgates for the instruction of such experts. It is however difficult to deny the utility (probably mostly to Defendant parties) in obtaining such statistical evidence in any case where there is a substantial lifetime claim for damages, such as for care, accommodation or services, where the claiming party had some co-morbidity known to downwardly affect life expectancy and where this is not wholly addressed by other experts. 5. Imposing retrospective conditions upon reliance upon expert evidence is likely to be very difficult

urologist who provided an initial ‘advisory only’ report and then a substantive report following the issuing of the Claim. Thereafter, the Claimant instructed a further urologist expert, having lost confidence in the first expert. During the course of the disclosure of the latter report, the Defendant discovered the involvement of the earlier expert and sought disclosure of this report. This was resisted by the Claimant on the grounds of litigation privilege but disclosed the earliest report on a ‘without prejudice basis’.

The case of Bowman v Thompson (2019) (unreported, QBD, Dingemans J, 21 January 2019) concerned a situation probably familiar to many of those involved in litigation where expert evidence is prevalent.

The Defendant thus made an application to the Court that the Claimant only be allowed to rely upon his served substantive report should he disclose the one not served. This was refused on the basis that the judge held that there was no discretion to impose retrospective conditions on a party’s permission to rely on expert evidence already granted.

This was a clinical negligence claim brought against a general practitioner where it was alleged that the Claimant’s cauda equina syndrome had been mismanaged. The Claimant obtained permission to rely upon the report of a consultant

Mr Justice Dingemans dismissed the Defendant’s appeal of this decision. He held that there was no vehicle for the retrospective imposition of a condition on existing orders and even if it had been argued that the judge below should have varied

the order pursuant to CPR 3.1(7), in the absence of mistake or misstatement, such an exercise of discretion would not have been appropriate. The lesson from the Court is that the time to seek such a condition as sought by the Defendant in this case (see also Edwards-Tubb v JD Wetherspoon PLC [2011] EWCA Civ 136) was at the permission stage, before which is the time to seek confirmation as to whether any other experts had been instructed by their opposite number. An affirming answer should lead to the seeking of an order conditional upon the disclosure of the earlier evidence. A negative answer should be reassuring if correct and if not, potentially grounds for a Court to exercise a discretion to vary under CPR 3.1(7). Thomas Crockett Hailsham Chambers, March 2019 Disclaimer: This article is provided free of charge for information purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied on as such. No responsibility for the accuracy and/or correctness of the information and commentary set out in the article, or for any consequences of relying on it, is assumed or accepted.

www.bbolawsoc.org.uk

advertorial

www.bbolawsoc.org.uk

ADVERTORIAL

Is Your Legal Software Ready to Remain Compliant in 2019? The legal software market is amidst a period of change and consolidation. Previously, most Law Technology suppliers tended to be owner-managed businesses. However, today’s landscape is very different, with a good number being bought up by larger Venture Capitalist-backed businesses looking to consolidate the market and drive product development with greater access to new technology. This focus on a dramatically reduced number of ‘goforward’ products has created inevitable threats to existing solutions in use across many firms.

suitable software in place that can record all VAT transactions and submit the data to HMRC via a new Application Programming Interface.

While older products may be supported by suppliers in the short term, many won’t receive the active development needed to keep pace with industry changes and could be ‘end-of-lifed’ in the future. Users therefore risk either not being totally compliant or will have to employ work-arounds to make them both function and comply.

Staying compliant The investment from software suppliers in ‘goforward’ products could result in the products already in use by firms no longer being supported and in many cases, ‘end of lifed’ or ‘sunsetted’. Those that don’t ask questions of their providers therefore risk breaching legislation or incurring higher fees.

Making Tax Digital More change is fast-approaching and increasing the pressure on firms to digitise to meet regulations. For example, HMRC’s Making Tax Digital (MTD) initiative which launched in April 2019, is set to make fundamental changes to the tax system.

For example, a firm’s existing supplier could request that they change to an alternative system, which could come at a large expense to the business. Alternatively, keeping the existing system could mean that they simply won’t be compliant from the moment any new legislation takes effect, or are forced into buying expensive “add on” products which have a limited life span and are cumbersome to implement and use.

MTD requires firms to record and report their VAT transactions digitally. Firms must therefore have

With paper only records no longer acceptable, solutions must be both capable of recording all transactions digitally and communicating directly with HMRC’s systems. Firms should therefore check the status of their systems, ensuring they have the controls to maintain an efficient and compliant operation.

The process of implementing and migrating data to another software system could also be overlooked. Data migration takes considerable time and resources to make sure it’s done right. Leaving this close to regulatory deadlines or incomplete before systems cease could force firms to accept high renewal or migration fees, or even a lengthy agreement on a solution they aren’t fully satisfied with. Taking active precautions, such as asking suppliers about the state of existing software or seeking advice from legal IT experts will help firm managers to make early decisions about the best course of action when faced with potentially outdated or non-compliant products. Taking these steps now could help firms to reap the benefits of providers which offer fast migration with full support and expertise, giving their practice maximum compliance and longevity and allowing them to thrive in an increasingly digital sector. Tim Smith, Technical Director at Insight Legal Software Ltd To discuss this topic further or the services we can offer, please give us a call on 01252 518939, email us at info@insightlegal.co.uk or visit our website; www. insightlegal.co.uk

www.bbolawsoc.org.uk

ADVERTORIAL

celebrates 2,000 UK Law Firms

EAP Legal Software, the UK’s leading provider of cloud legal software and automated forms and precedents to small and medium sized law firms, has announced a major new expansion initiative into the United States. LEAP has more than 2,000 firms and 12,000 users using its software in the UK and Republic of Ireland.

PCLaw | Time Matters is a new joint venture operated by LEAP Legal Software, the world’s leading provider of cloud-based legal software to small and medium-sized law firms, and LexisNexis Legal & Professional, part of RELX and a leading global provider of information and analytics. The new company has taken over the extensive customer list of firms that use PCLaw and Time Matters in the United States, Canada and Australasia. According to Richard Hugo-Hamman, Executive Chairman of LEAP and now also of PCLaw | Time Matters LLC, “We are first and foremost a legal software company. It is all that we do. We focus all our efforts on providing the highest standards of customer support, and the most innovative and useful software for lawyers and support staff. We help our clients to build great law firms. We believe that profitable and healthy law firms that ‘help people like us’ in the common areas of law such as family law, real estate, immigration, probate and the like are good for our communities. Surprisingly many small law firms don’t do well financially. It is our job to give them the tools to do more work with the same number of people and grow the profits of their firms. Our global success has been built on delivering on this promise. We will immediately start improving the customer support experience for PC Law and Time Matters users with the introduction of our state-of-the-art online support experience built on the Salesforce technology stack that LEAP has used for more than a decade. We are also very aware that the crucially important Certified Independent Consultant (CIC) network is ready for a more focussed and active program to help them better serve their clients. They play a crucially important advisory role to many law firms, and we will make sure that they have all the information they need to provide good informed advice and to help them build their businesses. We think that a strong CIC network, well supported by the JV, will be good for our thousands of customers. Another advantage that we bring to the table is that we have successfully electronically converted more than 4,000 law firms from desktop/on-premise software into the cloud. Our intellectual property and data transition experience around this change management means that we can help firms through this transition with minimum disruption to day

to day operations and delightfully for the lawyers, when they start using LEAP all their familiar data is there for them. We are very proud to have been chosen to work with LexisNexis to move their loyal clients to the cloud in as smooth and affordable a way as possible, when they choose to.” Founded in 1992, LEAP has grown to become the first truly international provider of legal software for small to medium sized law firms. HugoHamman continues: “Our approach is to leverage our core global software with software reflecting deep local knowledge in jurisdiction specific add-ons that allow LEAP to be uniquely familiar to anyone working in that jurisdiction. This means we have on the ground offices and people who will travel to see you and help you get going. We have development teams in each country who add and deliver this deep localisation. Although we are a cloud company, our business model is based on knowing our customers and the legal environment they work in better than any competitor in the world. There is no substitute for sitting in front of a customer and getting unfiltered feedback. This is how we get the information we need to build great products.” LEAP began to develop a cloud service offering during the financial crisis of 2008. After nearly five years of significant investment and product development LEAP began rolling out the cloud version of software to law firms in January 2013. LEAP has taken clients on a major journey through technology. LEAP began in 1992 on a Mac platform. Since then LEAP has migrated users from Mac to several versions of Windows and more recently to the cloud. Clients who have stayed on the journey have avoided the disruption and cost of unnecessary change LEAP has taken care of them. All LEAP data is stored in AWS in dedicated facilities around the world. Amazon Web Services is recognised as the world’s leading hosting platform. In June 2017 leading analyst firm Gartner noted that it was “most commonly chosen for strategic, organization wide adoption.” In February 2019 technology research firm Canalys listed AWS as the strong market leader for cloud infrastructure, with 32% of the market (in Q4 of 2017) and annual growth running at 46% showing a big corporate move into the cloud. In the American Bar Association’s Legal Technology Resource Center’s 2018 Legal Technology Survey Report where almost half of the responses were from sole practitioners and small firm lawyers, 55% percent of respondents said they are now using cloud computing technology. The most cited benefits of using cloud computing include accessing data from anywhere worldwide and 24/7 availability. These benefits are cited by 68% and 59% of respondents respectively. The low cost for cloud services, stronger security, robust data backup, recovery and speed of getting up

and running are also seen as major benefits of the cloud over on-premise infrastructure. Unrivalled Track Record LEAP supports more than 8,000 law firms using its software worldwide on a single cloud platform. Over 50% of these firms have undergone a successful data transfer by LEAP to transition to the cloud platform. 3,000 firms started anew with LEAP cloud and kept historical data on premise. This is a common theme, firms wanting to use the installation of LEAP as a “fresh start”, making a clean break from the past and moving forwards into the cloud with the best software available. As Mariska Lloyd, Global Transitions Manager of LEAP says, “We have the capability of moving firms from PC Law® and Time Matters to LEAP and the track record of doing so. We have never had a complaint about the accuracy of a data and document conversion from PCLaw® or Time Matters to LEAP.” Chris Stock, the newly appointed CEO of PCLaw | Time Matters (and previous CEO of LEAP US) says, “We are delighted to be working with all users of PCLaw® and Time Matters to enhance their technology, enable mobile and remote working, and make firms more secure, efficient and profitable.” About LEAP Legal Software LEAP is committed to creating and providing legal software solutions which improve the quality of service provided by law firms, resulting in better help for those in need, and more efficient and profitable law firms. LEAP provides the most advanced software solutions aimed at small to medium sized law firms, spending more than USD 12 million each year on research and development for its legal platform. About LEAP UK LEAP is a cloud-based practice management system with integrated time recording, billing and client accounting. Developed specifically for small to medium-sized law firms, LEAP’s powerful features allow fee earners and legal support staff to manage their matters more efficiently and profitably from anywhere, anytime and from any device, accessing real-time matter and client information on the move. With an investment of more than £8m each year into research and development, LEAP continually strives to deliver a product that meets the demands of its users. This ensures that law firms using the software benefit from affordable, yet highly innovative technology. LEAP simplifies a law firm’s IT infrastructure, eliminating the need for expensive servers, reducing hardware and support costs and eliminating the confusion and risk that comes with using multiple programs and databases. Currently supporting over 2000 law firms across the UK and Ireland to streamline their practices, LEAP has offices in London, Manchester, Brighton, Edinburgh, Cardiff, Belfast and Dublin.

www.bbolawsoc.org.uk

EXPERT WITNESS

Navigating the challenges ahead

t has been widely reported that the insurance market place is challenging, and practices preparing for renewal may find a toughening stance from insurers. A number of factors are influencing the prevailing market conditions, but the two most impactful are:

Market conditions Lloyd’s of London financial performance showed that between 2016 and 2018 60% of syndicates were unprofitable and underperforming. This identified non US PII as the second worst performing class of insurance within Lloyd’s and corrective measures are taking place. Many syndicates have reduced capacity, along with having an expectation to carry rate increases into 2019; when you combine these two factors it results in many of the syndicates having a limited new business appetite or ability for growth. Claims An increase in claims severity - with multiple loses breaching the compulsory primary layer of insurance. The most sizeable claims emanating from the following areas of practice: • Commercial Work • Depositor Funded developments • Escalating Ground Rent provisions • Litigation • Wills and Probate • Cyber Crime A number of these practice areas have generated losses that have impacted both primary and the first excess layer insurers which could have a bearing on some insurers’ rates. It has already led to significant reduction in willing insurers to provide coverage for the first excess layer above the compulsory primary layer, often described as the working layer so premiums for this layer of insurance are guaranteed to rise. Despite the challenges highlighted above, practices can still navigate through any potential insurance market turbulence ahead, proving that they present a detailed presentation and they are supported by some expert broking. Ultimately those active insurers will wish to align themselves with good businesses. It is therefore important that you take a proactive approach to demonstrate this to

insurers. You can do this by following these steps: Step 1: Act early - begin the process early, capacity may diminish closer to the renewal date so it’s imperative not to close off potential avenues due to poor timing. Step 2: Completion of your proposal form – do so with utmost care and attention, ensuring that your work split adds up to 100% and that you answer all the applicable questions. If any question specifically requests additional or supporting information, please make sure that you provide this. If a yes or no answer does not quite work for your practice and the way that you do things, please make clear reference and provide further explanation. Wherever possible complete the proposal form on a computer to ensure that it is legible and easy for an underwriter to understand. Step 3: Claims information - Provide updated claim summaries even if you have had no claims as insures will require this information to satisfy their underwriting file. Your representative should be able to obtain these for you with your writing permission. If you have had claims or there are open reserves then an overview of what happened, and what lessons have been learned to prevent these from occurring in the future. If you have notifications open with no reserves, provide your view on both merit and quantum. Step 4. Distinguish yourself from the crowd - As a proposal form generally provides the numeric data that an insurer can use to load up their pricing tool. It is the softer facts about your practice along with some expert broking that provide them with the necessary ingredients to deviate away from their technical pricing with this in mind, it would be prudent to provide a foreword about your practice. This may include, a brief history how you have got to where you are today, the management and structure of the practice, your client base, along with your approach to quality control and risk management it is however important to be proud of the accomplishments of your practice. It is likely you will be vying for

the attention of underwriters with hundreds of your peers. With this in mind, it is important to provide a quality presentation that provides the underwriters with a good insight and understanding of your practice but do so succinctly and do not drip feed information as this will put underwriters off. Select the right representative for your firm Direct access to leading insurers It is incredibly important to prevent unnecessary links in the chain. Ignoring the delays that this may create in the event of a claim materialising, the immediate issue could well be in the forthcoming negotiation. Additional and unnecessary links in the chain distance your practice from the underwriter and insurer. It can create unnecessary delays in the process and could result in your message to insurers being diluted too. The more people in the process can mean increased premiums or that you don’t get appropriate service. Experience and expertise Work with a broker, who has an understanding of the legal and the ability to appropriately articulate your practice to insurers. Choose a broker who can guide your practice and provide appropriate advice to you on policy and issues that may affect you. Furthermore, whilst no practice wishes to experience claims, you may wish to select a representative that has the appropriate resources and expertise to help you, when you will need it most should the need arise. Strategy and timing We recommend approaching the market in good time, but it is equally important to present your practice well, so do take time over this. An underwriter will put their company’s capital at risk when they insure a practice so it is important that you help them make a positive decision about your practice. If you provide your chosen representatives your detailed presentation 6 weeks prior to your renewal date this should be enough time to explore the market and present terms to you. The later you leave matters, there is more risk of encountering reduced capacity and less choice for your practice.

www.bbolawsoc.org.uk

advertorial

Solving the back office puzzle Solving the back office puzzle By Julian Bryan, Managing Director, Quill

rue professional ‘cradle to grave’ solutions are difficult to find. It’s rare that suppliers to the legal sector offer everything needed in a modernday law firm’s back office – that’s software to manage accounts, matters and documents, and outsourced services to take over core administration functions. At Quill, however, that’s exactly what we do – provide a single platform that combines the applications and outsourced support required to operate a high-performing legal business. You only have to look at our website’s home page to meet the entire series of software and services available from Quill. Users can pick and choose from: Interactive – case management, legal accounts and document management software with in-built risk management functionality; Pinpoint – outsourced legal cashiering service using Interactive; Payroll – outsourced payroll and pension management service; Type – outsourced typing service delivered in association with Document Direct; Precision – outsourced legal cashiering service on any software; and Bookkeeping – outsourced bookkeeping service for all sectors. But before diving into more detail about our software and services, we’d like you to join us on a mini history tour of Quill in order to show you how this full service provision has come about. You see, we actually first started out in business way back in 1978 – over 40 years ago. Right from these early days, our systems were being designed to help practices avoid unnecessary repetitive paperwork tasks for which the law is renowned. In the intervening 40-plus years, the legal industry remains our absolute focus, our technology has developed to the current complete cloud-based practice management system it is today, and our offerings have been extended to also include outsourced cashiering, payroll and typing services. 1978 to 2019 has been a truly remarkable journey. To quote some statistics from the present day:

our Interactive software has earned over 7,000 current users; our Pinpoint division posts over 2 million transactions every year; our Payroll team processes over 100,000 payslips annually and last year transferred over £54 million in salaries as an accredited BACS bureau; every other department just keeps growing. Going back to why Quill’s so unique, our lengthy heritage, privately owned status and one-stop-shop portfolio really set us apart from our competitors. Few of our contemporaries can boast a comparable expansive background. Fewer still can make claims about independent ownership. And even fewer can proffer a total back office product range. Moving on to our clients, many of our users have been with us from the very beginning. Their continued loyalty speaks volumes about the close relationships we’ve formed together over a period of four decades and the quality of our various solutions which they use on a day-to-day basis. Browse through our multiplying number of case studies online and you’ll see how our clients wax lyrical about our personable, long-serving employees who are ambassadors for Quill; ethical stance evidenced by multiple accreditations and charitable giving; technologically advanced software that’s won awards; and catalogue of outsourced services which allow them to concentrate on their business-critical responsibilities without distraction. Clients repeatedly tell us that, simply by choosing Quill as their principal business partner, they’re able to become “digital by default”, “compliant to the letter of the CLC Accounts Code”, “free to do what I do”, “a successful, profit-making firm”, “focused on matter management and business development”, “revolutionised”, “100% assured of regulatory compliance”, “more economical and productive [with] use of resources – both human and material”, “able to work flexibly when out of the office”, “committed to the cloud concept” (note: their words, not ours!) and much more besides. Nick Timmings, Partner at Petersfields LLP, perfectly sums up what clients think about Quill: “By relying on Quill for all our main software and service needs, we have one monthly payment, one point of contact and one primary store of our electronic files. It’s so convenient and so much easier

to run our business in this totally integrated way”. Allan Hunt, Senior Partner at MPP Solicitors, expresses similar sentiments: “[With] Quill we have trusted relationships. [We use] Payroll as a bolt on to Quill’s Pinpoint service and Interactive software which we already subscribe to. With Quill firmly behind us, our back office operates smoothly and integrates seamlessly.” By utilising our extensive time-saving, efficiency-enhancing, cost-reducing, securityboosting, compliance-assured products, an ever-growing list of benefits are achieved. Through heavy investment in R&D, we ensure this is the case. Our ongoing software and service development is a future-proofing promise that, whatever changes and challenges are faced by the legal profession, Quill’s got every client’s back. We know that not all firms are the same. Each has differing demands which are best overcome with a differing mixture of software and services. It’s our role to ascertain what this is, thereby providing the proper tools to take control of processes and optimise performance, both now and into the future. We find nothing more satisfying than empowering law firms to do just that. To discover more about Quill, please visit www. quill.co.uk, email info@quill.co.uk or call 0161 236 2910.

Julian Bryan joined Quill as Managing Director in 2012 and is also the Chair of the Legal Software Suppliers Association. Quill has been a leading provider of legal accounting and case management software, and the UK’s largest supplier of outsourced legal cashiering services, to the legal professional for over 40 years.