Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
Three magic circle firms are supporting an initiative to create a “universally standardised” template for non-disclosure agreements.
The OneNDA project lists Allen & Overy, Linklaters and Slaughter and May as part of its drafting group. Major non-UK firms Norton Rose Fulbright and Gilbert + Tobin are also represented on the team, along with Ashurst.
In addition to the aforementioned law firms, in-house counsel from a range of companies are also helping to contribute to the project, commenting on the NDA template as it develops and committing to adopt it once it has been finalised.
Companies involved include Airbus, American Express, Barclays, Bupa, Deliveroo, Ernst & Young, UBS and several Coca-Cola subsidiaries.
The OneNDA initiative was co-founded by Electra Japonas and Roisin Noonan, CEO and COO of The Law Boutique respectively. It aims to have approved a standardised NDA template by the week commencing 10 May and to have attracted 1,000 partner companies by the end of the year.
The initiative hopes that the introduction of a standardised NDA will provide greater commercial protection without unnecessary delay and minimise the potential for friction between parties beginning a business relationship. It will also reduce the need for repetitive, rudimentary legal work.
[ymal]
“The most exciting bit about it is seeing the legal community really pull together in such an incredible way, from law firms to in-house counsel to legal tech vendors,” Japonas said. “The support has been unbelievable … it’s amazing to see how committed we all are to making this happen.”
Lawyer Monthly hears from Eleanor Weaver, CEO of Luminance, on the prevalence of technology in law and how a single platform is required to integrate it all.
Today, technology is being used by lawyers on a daily basis, from document signing to data rooms, to providing enhanced insight during processes like M&A due diligence or eDiscovery.
But with demand for LegalTech tools sky high, so is the supply. And in an increasingly crowded LegalTech market, it can be difficult for lawyers to find the right solution for their needs, particularly when many of these tools claim to be using sophisticated technology like AI to provide an extra layer of analysis, but actually do nothing of the sort.
Despite being an industry traditionally quite resistant to change, industry experts and investment professionals are placing big bets on this changing: investment in legal technology companies was $1.2 billion in 2019 and has only grown since. And as funding for this fast-growing area has increased, legal tech start-ups have proliferated. In fact, a list compiled by Stanford University feature nearly 1,250 legal technology companies, while a start-up map put together by LegalTech start-up community, Legal Geek includes more than 250 from Europe alone.
It is not uncommon for legal professionals to be using multiple - sometimes dozens - of technologies, each of them fulfilling a niche. Indeed, a lot of LegalTech providers are ‘point’ solutions, meaning they are only able to perform very specific tasks. For instance, this could be a tool that facilitates collaboration across team members or automates the M&A due diligence process by extracting relevant clauses like ‘Change of Control’ and ‘Termination’.
A lack of integration between these platforms has meant that lawyers often find themselves switching between the various tools for different practice areas, wasting precious time, resources and money. Think about the time and effort needed to switch between the results generated from a contract extraction tool to a Word document - the process of locating the relevant document, finding the specific area of the document that needs to be amended and then transferring the analysis provided by the extraction tool is extremely laborious.
It is not uncommon for legal professionals to be using multiple - sometimes dozens - of technologies, each of them fulfilling a niche.
Not to mention the fact that a lot of these technologies lack the flexibility to work in different languages or even across different jurisdictions; I have spoken to global organisations where each and every office has their own tech stack in order to cater to their language needs. It goes without saying that this can be a real hinderance to tech collaboration across global offices as well as overall innovation within a practice.
Recognising the changes underway, a lot of LegalTech providers are now integrating or merging their technologies in an attempt to become the ultimate one-stop shop. 2020 saw Litera, a legal workflow and workspace technology company acquire Allegory, a cloud-based casement management software, to further its aim to become a one-stop shop for the legal profession. There was also Onit, an e-billing and contract management software, which bought SimpleLegal, a technology that helps with collaboration and tracks legal spending.
However, a lot of these providers are still relying on outdated technology such as creating vast banks of rules in a database which search the documents for hits. This inflexible approach means that in an unexpected event like the pandemic or a changing legal situation like Brexit, these technologies are unable to adapt to new legal needs or changes, instead requiring intensive re-programming and re-configuration to be of any value to lawyers. Merely integrating with another legaltech provider is therefore not enough to be a one-stop shop if the underlying technology is not flexible enough to meet evolving legal needs.
Next-generation AI and machine learning is changing the game. The technology does not require any machine ‘pre-training’, but instead can flexibly adapt to the data it sees, no matter the size, complexity, language or even use case, whether it be a regulatory compliance review, an M&A due diligence transaction or even a litigation case.
[ymal]
In the past few months, end-to-end AI technology has been critical for firms across the globe. I was recently speaking to Tanja Podinic, the Global Director of Innovation Programs at Dentons, who talked about how the firm were using advanced technology to identify force majeure clauses for COVID-19-focused reviews as well as to identify and then remediate and modify documents which are non-compliant with data privacy legislation like the GDPR and CCPA. Dentons were able to deploy Luminance across their European, Middle Eastern, African and Asian offices, with same technology enabling them to work seamlessly across cross-border, multilingual legal matter.
But some think that the one-stop shop may be too good to be true. A recent article in LegalTech News even suggested that firms are concerned that one-stop shop solutions may not offer the flexibility or ‘best-in-class’ functionality for specific legal tasks, meaning they are not able to pivot to new legal changes. These concerns are certainly valid if you are reliant on a solution that isn’t using the latest advances in technology, and sadly there will still be cases of firms having their fingers burnt by false claims of AI and machine learning that are actually reliant on rules-based technologies. But true AI is changing this, helping lawyers across a full spectrum of legal needs, all from within a single, streamlined platform.
We are now entering a next wave of legaltech innovation and finding a one-stop shop solution is a crucial part of this shift. With advanced AI that is able to flexibly adapt to any dataset it sees, finding a one-stop shop solution is not a challenge, but an opportunity.
Entering law school can be very exciting. However, many students feel a sense of dread because they don't know how they are going to pay for it. Luckily, there are plenty of options that may fit whatever circumstance you are facing. Here are just a few of the ways you can pay for your post-graduate education.
You should always check out free money over all else. This free money is called grants and does not need to be repaid unless you drop out of school. While grant money will not cover all of your tuition, it could cover a good portion of it. Check with the financial aid office at your college to learn about which grant programs may be available to you. Unfortunately, the most-known grant program, the Pell Grant, may not be available to you as it is set aside typically for undergraduate students only.
By the time you reach law school, you should have access to many more scholarship opportunities than you did as an undergraduate. These scholarships will be much more specific to what you are going for. Just as with grant money, these do not have to be repaid after graduation. Have the financial aid officer help you to apply as there are hundreds, if not thousands, of scholarships available and you will need to narrow them down to the ones that actually apply to you.
Most people don't think about applying for student loans from private lenders, but they are a great way to get help paying for your schooling. Many graduates find that they are much easier to negotiate with if you need to adjust your payments. There is also the little-recognised fact that by borrowing from a private lender, you have the opportunity to develop a positive relationship with that lender that you can use later in your life, such as if you need an auto loan or a home loan. If you are wondering how much your payments might be after you graduate, most lenders offer a student loan repayment calculator to help with your calculations.
[ymal]
Many law schools offer work-study programs that allow the student to work and earn money. Since it is a real job, you can spend the money however you see fit, but you may want to use at least a portion of it to help pay your school expenses. This will leave you with less money you have to repay in the future. A huge benefit about work-study is that the job schedules are tailored to your school schedule, so you never have to worry about having to skip a class to get to your job or vice-versa.
There are certain types of loans that may be forgiven in their entirety if you meet certain guidelines, such as practicing law in low-income areas of the country or if you work in the legal department for non-profit organizations. Check your financial aid office to verify which loans would qualify for this and what you need to do to have them forgiven.
Apple on Tuesday called for the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to mandate public emissions disclosures by American companies.
In a tweet, Apple president Lisa Jackson shared a statement from the company’s head of global energy and environmental policy, Arvin Ganesan.
"Measuring and mapping carbon emissions enables companies to understand their footprint, develop strategies to reduce emissions and ultimately achieve decarbonisation," Ganesan said, adding that disclosure could serve to create a baseline for best practices and promote the competitive tackling of climate change.
"Apple, therefore, believes that the SEC should issue rules to require that companies disclose third-party-audited emissions information to the public, covering all scopes of emissions, direct and indirect, and the value chain."
An Apple spokesperson confirmed that the statement referred to “Scope 3” emissions, such as those resulting from the use of a company’s products by other parties.
The comments mark the largest backing of comprehensive emissions disclosure rules from a major US company to date, said Veena Ramani, senior program director for Boston-headquartered climate advocacy group Ceres.
Other business leaders have also called on the US government to set mandatory climate impact disclosures, including BlackRock CEO Lary Fink. BlackRock has also urged companies to disclose their Scope 3 emissions to investors.
[ymal]
ESG-based investment funds have grown increasingly popular in recent years, but a lack of common standards in reporting emissions data has made it difficult to compare operations across companies.
Also on Tuesday, Apple joined more than 300 other blue chip companies in signing an open letter calling on the Biden administration to designate 2030 as the target year for 50% decarbonisation across the US.
Philip Turvey, executive director at Anglia Research discusses how the probate genealogy sector might repair the damage that has been done to its public perception.
The COVID-19 pandemic has claimed thousands of lives across the UK, and with the death toll standing at 127,000, it’s little surprise that our FOI report – which surveyed all 359 local authorities in England and Wales – found that the number of people who died without a will and with no known next-of-kin increased by 60% between March and May 2020 compared to the same period in 2019.
The spike in these deaths places an additional importance on the role of probate genealogists in the probate process – as they are used to locate correct beneficiaries and facilitate the distribution of the deceased’s assets.
Yet despite this responsibility, the reputation of the industry has suffered greatly, with our FOI report revealing the fractious relationship between probate genealogist and local authorities, with only 22% of local authorities believing probate genealogists operate transparently or honestly.
So, where did it all go wrong?
There is a common misconception that probate genealogy involves men sitting in dimly lit rooms, sifting through dusty old records at a leisurely pace to find a deceased’s long lost next-of-kin. Of course, there is a scholarly element to the work, but it is far more cutthroat than it may appear.
Only 22% of local authorities believe probate genealogists operate transparently or honestly.
Ever since the TV series Heir Hunters sensationalised the sector and made the work look simple, we’ve seen a boom in the number of inexperienced, self-proclaimed heir hunters. These heir hunters often have few qualifications or industry knowledge and engage in dubious and unethical practices which only serve to diminish the industry’s reputation and line their pockets at the expense of beneficiaries. For instance, these heir hunters are known to pressure local councils into signing written contracts with them to obtain exclusive rights to estates.
The use of written contracts to obtain exclusivity limits the amount of scrutiny given to each case and allows unethical heir hunters to identify one heir to an estate to collect their fee and forego the rest of the beneficiaries – potentially resulting in years of legal battles for beneficiaries.
These practices are damaging the industry’s reputation, with our FOI report finding that only 22% of local authorities in England and Wales thought heir hunters operate honestly and transparently.
The relationship between local authorities and heir hunters has also been damaged by the lack of regulations within the probate genealogy industry. The sector is relatively niche and therefore lacks an overarching statutory regulatory body whose membership is mandatory for all operating in the sector.
The closest we have is the Association of Probate Researchers, however, with membership remaining voluntary, it lacks the statutory powers to enforce regulatory measures that the Office for Communications (Ofcom) does across the television, radio, telecoms, and postal sectors.
The sector is relatively niche and therefore lacks an overarching statutory regulatory body whose membership is mandatory for all operating in the sector.
The lack of an overarching regulatory authority is often exploited by unethical heir hunters to pressure bereaved beneficiaries into signing dubious contracts, as evidenced by the fact our FOI report found that only 19% of local authorities said they believed heir hunters act responsibility towards the next of kin when encouraging them to enter a contract.
To change their perception, probate genealogy firms need to take it upon themselves to self-regulate. They should be committed to following best practice and only charging a fair price for their work. While the onus is on heir hunters to change their behaviour, there are steps local authorities can put in place to protect beneficiaries.
Councils need to follow government guidelines and, where possible, refer all relevant estates to the Government Legal Department’s Bona Vacantia Division (BVD) who will then advertise for next-of-kin within 5 working days. If for some reason this cannot be done, then they need to offer the details simultaneously to at least three probate genealogy firms to ensure oversight, scrutiny and that relatives are offered fair fees. This also ensures protection for councils, who avoid an audit risk and possible accusations of bad practice.
Also, local authorities need to conduct due diligence and stop signing exclusive written contracts with unethical heir hunters. Our FOI report found that seven local councils have these contracts with heir hunters, while one authority admitted contracting with an heir hunter based on the amount they offered to pay the authority for details of each deceased person or ‘lead’ they were given. While this may sound like a small figure, in the context of the pandemic and the rise of intestate deaths, these written contracts and the dubious practices they encourage could leave families facing years of lengthy, expensive legal battles to obtain their inheritance.
[ymal]
With more people dying intestate as a result of COVID-19, it is our responsibility as probate genealogists to assist overstretched local authorities and locate relatives and facilitate the distribution of the deceased’s assets.
Despite this, our FOI research found there is a general distrust in heir hunting firms within local authorities. All probate genealogists must work ethically and transparently to change this opinion and support local authorities who are time-poor and, in some cases, struggling to maintain due diligence amid the influx of intestate deaths caused by the pandemic.
Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer has announced the promotion of 22 new partners globally – half of them women.
The latest hiring round comes soon after the firm’s announcement in March that it intends to build a global leadership team that is at least 40% female. It also far surpasses the firm’s 2020 promotion round, in which four of the 21 partners appointed were female (10% of the cohort).
The 50/50 proportion split is also the most equal gender split announced by magic circle firms in this year’s promotion rounds.
Six of the newly appointed partners are based in London; all but one are female. The other 16 new partners are spread relatively evenly across the firm’s offices with five appointed in Germany, three in the US, two in Austria, and one each In Franch, Spain, the Netherlands, Tokyo, Singapore and Abu Dhabi.
“I am delighted to welcome such a strong group of colleagues to Freshfields’ global partnership,” said Freshfields senior partner Georgia Dawson in a statement. “Our new partners bring diverse thinking, backgrounds and experience to our partnership, all critical to helping our clients navigate the ongoing complexities of the legal and business landscape.”
“The promotion of our new partners reflects the firm’s focus on diversity over several years and I look forward to working with each of them as we continue to build our firm for the future.”
Freshfields’ announcement follows magic circle rival Linlaters’ unveiling of a 35-partner promotion round in which 40% of those promoted were female. Allen & Overy also announced the promotion of 30 new partners, 10 of whom are female.
The right to remain silent is one of the most talked-about rights available to people who have been arrested because of any offence. However, most people do not know the scope of this right or the specific situations under which it can be exercised. That is why few people apply it, even though it could have saved them from conviction or harsh penalties. Some of the situations under which you can choose to remain silent include:
It is important for everyone to fearlessly defend their right to remain silent. If you thought you have to wait until your rights are read to you before you can choose to be quiet, you were wrong. This right matters, and you should know when to use it because criminal incrimination requires a solid strategy.
One of the most significant advantages of using this right is that it prevents you from self-incrimination. You may think that you are doing a lot to defend yourself, but your words will come back to incriminate you.
For instance, when the police are questioning you, your answers may lay the basis for prosecution. When you choose to remain silent, you ensure that you do not become the source of information that ends up pinning you down.
The police will be hoping to get all the information from you before presenting you to a judge. That is the reason they will use every means to have you talking. When you exercise your right to remain silent, you deny them that opportunity. They cannot force you to speak, which means that they have to look for the information using other means. For example, they may have to look for witnesses to convince the prosecuting attorney to file a case.
[ymal]
When an officer reads your rights to you, and you have to choose between silence and answering questions, you have to be careful. You may be confident with the replies, but you should also think about what the officers want to achieve.
The fact that they are asking questions means that there is something they are yet to know. They are using that opportunity to gather the information from you, and if you remain silent, they will get nothing. The chances of getting that information are high when you speak.
You should not allow your right to remain silent to be treated as a courtesy. It is your constitutional right. This is one of the rights that ensure that we have a just legal system.
Therefore, you should not be intimidated into speaking when you do not wish to do so. Whether it is at the point of arrest or during interrogation, let the officers know that you understand your rights.
Instead of speaking up and incriminating yourself when you are arrested, the best thing is to contact your attorney for guidance. Let them come to the center where you are detained and find out your situation. They will advise you on how to proceed with the matter. They will also help you to understand other rights that will make the situation more manageable for you.
People are arrested for various offences every day and the chances of finding themselves in police custody. For such reasons, you should be prepared for any situation and know when to remain silent whenever an officer arrests, detains, or interrogates you.
Steve Sumner, Director of IT at Taylor Vinters, discusses how law firms can go about adapting to a new mode of business post-COVID.
IT departments have often been uprooted by the emergence of new and disruptive innovations to assist office life. Now, the disruptive force that is COVID-19 has forced IT to cater its solution to issues that lay outside that arena. Embracing that distinct change has been vital to productivity over the last year, and in many cases survival.
Business resilience quickly became a desirable attribute for IT investments and solutions to have, but this was by no means a focus prior to pandemic. According to McKinsey research, less than 10% of companies pre-COVID were resilient and prepared to survive the pandemic. Those who possessed a degree of resilience and had structures in place to facilitate remote working, even if it was only on a minor scale, enjoyed a head start in the race to onboard new technologies when lockdown became enforced.
Taylor Vinters had begun the process of embracing a flexible approach to work and had some of the skeleton structures in place prior to the pandemic. For organisations like Taylor Vinters, these measures were necessary. With over 180 staff who work across a range of different time zones, 99% of whom operate on corporate-owned devices, Taylor Vinters employees’ devices were already beginning to be onboarded, and our infrastructure was starting to transition away from on-premise to the cloud.
By March, that journey was a quarter of the way complete, but the onslaught of COVID-19 and the need to keep our staff safe and productive accelerated those needs.
According to McKinsey research, less than 10% of companies pre-COVID were resilient and prepared to survive the pandemic.
Of course, all our employees are working remotely now. Despite the disruption to routine commutes, meetings, and coffee catchups, our employees are appreciating working from home. The experience of increased productivity and work life balance has meant Taylor Vinters employees now favour a hybrid model of work.
And they aren’t alone. More than 80% of the global workforce does not want to return to the office full-time, ever. What may have seemed preposterous even two years ago, where employees are given a choice of where they can work, is now readily accepted. The validity of the amount of square feet that law offices currently take up, and the cost of their leases have been called into question.
With the ‘next normal’ moving toward a more permanent transition to remote working, it is critical to have a secure, agile and cloud based working environment in place. Every organisation needs to consider if they have the solutions in place to enable and empower at home workers. To do this effectively they must have the ability to tether internet from mobile phones to laptops for uninterrupted internet service and secure access to both applications and business-critical data across all devices including mobile and laptops.
To ensure these steps for secure remote workers at Taylor Vinters, we worked with Appurity, a long term partner of ours to implement a unified endpoint management (UEM) solution alongside a smart document management system. This solution worked with our iManage Cloud platform to merge seamlessly. We needed functionality and cloud configurability and Appurity and the UEM solution delivered.
[ymal]
Law firms, like other companies, have increased the amount of applications that sit on employee devices to ensure they have the tools they need to work wherever they are. The addition of video conferencing, browsing, SaaS delivery, and even wellness apps has seen significant demand. The renewed focus on health that the pandemic has bestowed upon us means that individuals now want more information about how long they have been looking at screen or how far they have cycled. Built-in AI screening capabilities of the UEM solution by MobileIron (acquired by Ivanti) ensures all applications downloaded to a device meet our compliance policies.
Taking advantage of a security service provider’s expert skillset can help IT teams optimise their info security, so all applications across all devices are locked down and secure. With the assistance of Appurity, Taylor Vinters was able to onboard its fleet of Android Enterprise devices completely remotely over the course of a few weeks.
Onboarding, user provisioning, configuration, application deployment and control enablement of all endpoints was automated by using zero touch enrolment UEM. Additionally, multi-factor authentication for application access on laptops was deployed by syncing a laptop with a mobile device, and harnessing the biometric capabilities of that device to guarantee a higher standard of identity access management.
Access management has always been important, but with over 36 billion records being exposed in 2020, it is clear that relying on passwords is no longer an option if firms’ priorities are to maintain resilience.
Despite the ramped-up rates of vaccination, the future remains uncertain. Organisations need to equip their employers to work productively and efficiently from anywhere, for some time yet. Mobile devices like phones laptops and tablets are vital to this approach and as a result have become the focal point of 87% of CISOs, according to research from Ivanti. Outside the security of the corporate office and up against a plethora of threats, mobility is key in security and for productivity for whatever the next normal brings.
Environmental law governs the variety of environmental issues that affect individuals, corporations, and government organisations. This type of law includes the cleanup of dangerous materials and regulations concerning the use of certain materials. Environmental laws are also put in place to keep public land, the air, and bodies of water as safe as possible.
In some instances, it is necessary to bring companies to trial if they compromise the environmental safety of a community or city. Here are three lawsuits that were beneficial for the environment.
This is one of the most influential environmental cases in the history of the United States. The lawsuit pertained to a Disney ski resort that was in the construction planning stages. The ski resort would be in the Mineral King Valley which is inside Sequoia National forest. The Sierra Club was opposed to the ski resort since construction would interfere with the national park's preservation.
Both sides submitted their appeals and the Supreme Court asserted that the Sierra Club did not have the grounds to sue and only had an interest in the construction. The Sierra Club amended their original complaint to prove that they were permitted to sue. This led to the passing of the National Environmental Policy Act. The act required Disney to submit a statement dealing with how the resort would impact the environment. After seeing that the ski resort would damage the environment, Disney did not move forward with construction.
It has been proven that greenhouse gases have a negative impact on the environment. Before 2007 there were very few rules in place to support environmental protection from greenhouse gases. Due to rising global temperatures, lawmakers and consumers, it became necessary for the government to be obligated to regulate carbon dioxide and other toxic gas emissions that affect the environment and compromise human health. The Supreme Court issued a verdict concerning this issue in mid-2007.
[ymal]
The Supreme Court's landmark ruling came as a result of a case between the EPA and the state of Massachusetts. The state wanted to bring attention to environmental issues that were caused by the government's failure to regulate emissions from automobiles. The Bush administration asserted that it did not have the right to regulate carbon emissions due to the Clean Air Act.
This incident is ongoing and involves a number of high-profile lawsuits. This litigation stemmed from the Deepwater Horizon incident, which changed with the BP oil spill in April 2010, an environmental disaster no one expected. A Deepwater Horizon drilling rig exploded on the Gulf of Mexico due to BP's negligence, and almost 5 million barrels of oil spilled into the Atlantic Ocean. The incident also claimed the lives of 11 people. About 30% of locals who lived near the site of the spill suffered mental illness as a result of the event, further proving that this incident had a global impact.
BP pleaded guilty in November 2012 and reached a $4.5 billion settlement with the US Department of Justice. BP allotted a budget of $3.5 billion to settle the case, but the costs have gone well beyond this future. About $28 billion has been spent to clean up the oil spill and pay claims; the company may also face up to $18 billion more for penalties.
A personal injury lawyer with a specialty in environmental law can handle your mass tort injury claims. Be sure to gather as many details as possible so you can bring a solid case to court and receive a fair settlement for yourself or your organisation.
International law firm Taylor Wessing has confirmed that it will open an office in Dublin, becoming the latest in a wave of UK firms adjusting to post-Brexit industry restrictions.
The Dublin office, which will be Taylor Wessing’s 29th worldwide, will have a focus on tech and life sciences. Corporate partner and executive board member James Goold and international co-head of life sciences and healthcare Alison Dennis will initially split their time between the firm’s London and Dublin offices, with a co-working space to be used at first.
Goold has been a partner at Taylor Wessing since 2012, joining from Jones Day. Dennis joined the firm last May, having previously spent almost 12 years as head of life sciences at Fieldfisher.
Commenting on the Dublin expansion, Goold said: “Dublin is a thriving, dynamic city and the surrounding areas of Cork and Galway continue to be recognised as amongst the leading tech and innovation hubs in the world. Our strategic growth plans offer opportunities for us to support international technology and life sciences sector organisations with leading advice that will deliver continued success for their businesses.”
Several high-profile UK firms have opened offices in Dublin to better navigate the post-Brexit trading environment. Hogan Lovells announced its expansion in March following similar announcements from Ashurst, Dentons and others.
The Law Society of Ireland announced in November that English- and Welsh-qualified solicitors would be required to have a physical presence in Ireland to maintain their EU practice rights there. In March, it confirmed that English and Welsh solicitors could requalify in the Republic of Ireland without needing to sit extra exams.
[ymal]
The move by Taylor Wessing remains subject to regulatory approval.
