Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
Jennifer Rhind, Solicitor in the Commercial Litigation Team at Wright Hassall Solicitors, explores how far customer reviews are legally protected and the recourse firms have against claims that they feel are insubstantial.
When a business or individual interacts with the firm at any point on their journey to becoming a client, most will want to discover more about the firm, its people and its reputation. Typically this will involve an online search, which will throw up Google or Trustpilot reviews.
How a firm responds to matters, the accuracy of advice, the quality of service and the approach of the lawyers, are all likely to be summed up on review sites and unfortunately, the unhappy client is more likely to wax lyrical than the contented one. Prospective clients of any business, in any sector, will consider these reviews a valuable source of information, helping shape their perception about a law firm and its suitability to handle the challenge for which they are seeking advice.
Poor reviews are often not what they seem, with the all-important context missing. Bad ones can cross the line from the reasonable opinion of the author into potential defamatory statements, which can have serious consequences for the target of the review, tweet, post or comment.
But just because a client feels they can express their opinion with impunity and say anything they want about the service received, it does not mean a business has to accept the reputational damage if it believes there is no substance to the claims.
No-one is immune from a defamation claim and there have been some high-profile defamation claims over recent years, which have added to the general rise in claims.
The story of law firm Summerfield Browne seeking damages against a previous client who left a defamatory review on Trustpilot saying the solicitors were: “A total waste of money, another scam solicitor”, is well known, but offers hope for other businesses.
Poor reviews are often not what they seem, with the all-important context missing.
Although this previous client argued this was his honest opinion, the Court awarded Summerfield Browne damages of £25,000 and costs, plus an injunction banning the previous client from repeating his allegations, whilst ordering Trustpilot to remove the review.
Trustpilot denounced the actions of the law firm, claiming the Court’s decision aimed to curtail the consumer’s right to freedom of expression and the firm has since received a host of bad reviews, which are likely not even from customers - just people standing up for the little man, as they see it.
This is a growing problem for businesses in all sectors, with a recent Trustpilot report detailing its removal of more than 2 million fake or harmful reviews out of a total of 39 million reviews left during 2020 alone. The vast majority were dealt with by automated software.
If someone, even anonymously, expresses an opinion about your business that you believe is defamatory, you should consider obtaining legal advice from a specialist, particularly in light of the potential defences which may be available to an individual faced with a defamation claim.
For example, if the individual can show there is substantial truth to the alleged defamatory statement, a claim in defamation is unlikely to succeed. Just because a statement is bad for business, it does not automatically mean you can do anything about it.
If someone, even anonymously, expresses an opinion about your business that you believe is defamatory, you should consider obtaining legal advice from a specialist.
The law in relation to defamation is contained within the Defamation Act 2013. For a statement to be defamatory, the publication of the statement must have caused, or be likely to cause, serious harm to reputation. If it is a business that suspects its reputation has been defamed, it will need to show that it has caused or is likely to cause the business to suffer serious financial loss in order to be regarded as ‘serious harm’.
A partner having to deal with bad online reviews or damaging comments on social media about the firm or its people can find it both stressful and time consuming, but just because the comments are unpleasant or personal in nature, it does not automatically mean they are defamatory.
The public’s growing desire to share their experiences and the increasing importance consumers place on reviews, tweets, posts, comments etc., as they undertake research during the buying process ensures there is a growing risk of online defamation - which should not go unchallenged.
The pandemic appears to have been good for many law firms, but success can bring envious criticism and claims of law firms benefitting from the wider misery endured by the public in lockdown. This can embolden keyboard warriors to vent, believing they can express any opinions they want about a business and in fact, one of the defences to a claim in defamation is honest opinion.
However, anyone trying to use this defence would need to establish that the words complained of as being defamatory were in fact a statement of opinion, which indicated as such and which an honest person could have held, based on facts that existed at the time the statement was published.
[ymal]
If the statement is deemed to be a statement of fact, this defence would be unsuccessful - there is a very fine line between statement of fact and statement of opinion.
Those within the business responsible for reviewing online comments should always carefully consider the meaning of the words used. Not just in their natural and ordinary meaning, however, as words can be defamatory through innuendo or implication.
Whilst the author of an opinion might not consider their words to be defamatory, there are various factors to consider, such as whether the author has over-elaborated the position and what the ordinary reasonable reader would consider a statement to mean.
Further, as a general rule an individual will not escape liability just by claiming they are simply repeating something someone else told them, unless they can prove the subject matter of the comment is true.
A business operating in the modern digitally connected world must actively monitor its online reputation. It should welcome honest customer feedback, but be ready to act to protect and defend a hard won reputation if it believes it has been unfairly maligned.
In a historic victory for unions, Uber’s British drivers will receive the rights of full workers following a landmark Supreme Court ruling in February.
Uber said it was “turning the page” on workers’ rights, guaranteeing that its more than 70,000 UK drivers would receive a minimum wage, holiday pay and pensions as befits their “worker” designation.
“This follows the recent UK Supreme Court ruling, which provides a clearer path forward as to a model that gives drivers the rights of worker status while continuing to let them work flexibly,” Uber said in a statement on Tuesday.
The company also said its drivers would earn at least the National Living Wage, or £8.72 per hour, after they receive a trip request. Should this be adopted more widely, it could represent a major change for the gig economy.
In February, the UK Supreme Court dismissed Uber’s appeal against a 2016 employment tribunal ruling that its drivers should be classed as workers and not self-employed “partners”.
After its appeal was thrown out, Uber said it would consult with drivers while the implications of the ruling were worked out.
Other countries have taken different stances on the eligibility of Uber drivers to be considered full workers. France’s top court in 2020 recognised drivers’ right to be considered an employee, and European Union regulators are also considering the implementation of new rules to protect gig economy workers.
[ymal]
Regulatory changes in California last year would have forced companies with a reliance on the gig economy to treat their contractors as full employees, leading Uber, DoorDash and Lyft to fund the $205 million Proposition 22 ballot measure. The measure was approved by voters, granting the companies exemption from the new labour law.
There are two categories that convicts fall into: misdemeanour and felony charges. While misdemeanour charges include minor violations and can land you in prison for a maximum of one year, felons can get longer sentences for violent crimes. While the government is pushing law enforcement to exercise its full power to deter crimes, more convicted felons are becoming repeat offenders. About 69% return to prison within three years after their release.
The following could be possible solutions for convicts to avoid going back to prison and find their way into society as reformed citizens.
Preparing for life after prison requires the offender to work their way to change willingly. Institutions work with agencies in the community to provide opportunities and assistance for convicts' rehabilitation for reintegration into society.
Institutional programmes are also one of the differences between a felony and a misdemeanour offender. Such programmes are only available to those who’ve been in prison for many years. Regarding other differences between these two general types of crimes, it's best to talk with legal professionals.
Institutional programmes for felony offenders can include the following:
Preparing for life after prison requires the offender to work their way to change willingly.
The bootcamp programme is a military-training-style camp that aims to instil self-discipline and steer offenders away from substance abuse. The programme takes in offenders under 35, non-violent, and eligible for parole in three years. The bootcamp has various physical exercises to help offenders develop physical and mental acuity. They keep a tight schedule of drills, tasks, and classes.
Accommodations are similar to that of a barracks. Those trained in bootcamp are early to new offenders, violators on probation, and delinquents. It has been reported that counseling and the camp atmosphere encouraged a positive change. After parole, they’re integrated into society and are pressed to find employment. The supreme court prevented disclosure of criminal records as a way to help those former convicts.
Felonies are a series of significant crime offences that could land anyone in jail. These crimes can inflict bodily harm on the victims and have you spending time in prison without parole. Not all felons can go to jail for varying charges. The court may grant probation instead to the offender through the following conditions:
[ymal]
For offenders under the age of 17, detention centres provide temporary care for youths who’ve committed a crime and been arrested. The youth detention center serves as a holding ground after the court finds that the child is likely to go back to dangerous crimes amid processing. Minors need to stay at detention centres for up to 27 days. In 2018, over 195,000 kids were placed in detention centers—all 625 of them scattered all over the nation.
Detention centres are different from correctional facilities as most children and teenagers are placed there for minor offences. These centres help keep minors away from the public. At the same time, government efforts can shift their focus away from punishments to rehabilitation instead.
The mentioned ways can help offenders reevaluate their lives and encourage them to live a quiet life after serving a long term in prison. They’re undergoing evaluation before being taken into the following programs to help those who want to change. Even so, it’s still up to the offender if they’ll take the necessary steps to get back to society as paroles require offenders to join such programs to prepare them for release.
Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer has become the latest magic circle firm to allow lawyers and staff to work remotely for up to half of their time on the clock.
Announced on Monday, the firm’s new agile working policy will allow Freshfields lawyers – including trainees – and business professionals to spend up to 50% of their hours working from home on the condition that their arrangements take account of client and business commitments.
Freshfields said the policy is an “interim approach” and that staff preferences may change once offices reopen.
Claire Wills, Freshfields’ London office managing partner, said: “Our guidance follows feedback from colleagues who signalled a clear preference for more flexibility but also recognises the importance of in-person interaction to our culture, personal development and client engagement.”
Olivia Balson, director of Freshfields’ Global Centre in Manchester, stressed the Centre’s importance to the connection and development of staff at the firm. “At the same time, we strongly believe in the value of a balance between remote and office-based working,” she said.
Freshfields is the latest in a swathe of law firms granting staff the ability to work from home as they feel appropriate. Taylor Wessing moved to adopt a “hybrid” work model in November, while Dentons, Slater & Gordon and other firms closed several offices in a shift towards remote working.
[ymal]
Staff at Linklaters and Norton Rose Fulbright have also been allowed to conduct 50% of their work from home under new rules. Other firms, like Cushman & Wakefield, have not been so quick to shift away from the office environment.
“One of the huge problems in the real estate industry is that people will over-simplify how they use their real estate going forward,” said C&W partner James Campbell at a Professional Practices Alliance webinar. “The reality is in 12 or 24 months’ time, when we get to the new normal, they will say ‘actually we probably needed more space.”
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has launched criminal proceedings against NatWest bank over its alleged breaching of money laundering regulations.
In a statement on Tuesday, the FCA said the case was sparked by the detection of “increasingly large cash deposits” being made into a UK account, which it alleged that NatWest’s systems failed to adequately scrutinise. Around £368 million was paid into the account, including £264 million in cash.
This case marks the first prosecution to be brought under the UK’s Money Laundering Regulations 2007 and the first against a bank. Charges are being brought under regulation 45 of the regulations, which requires firms to maintain adequate anti-money laundering controls and to take “all reasonable steps to prevent their use for money laundering purposes”.
The allegations date back to between 2011 and 2016, with the FCA having begun its investigation in 2017. The bank has been aware of their probe since then.
“NatWest Group has been co-operating with the FCA's investigation to date,” a spokesperson for the bank said in a statement. “NatWest Group takes extremely seriously its responsibility to seek to prevent money laundering by third parties and accordingly has made significant, multi-year investments in its financial crime systems and controls."
NatWest is a subsidiary of the NatWest Group and is 62% taxpayer-owned following its government bailout in the 2008 financial crisis. Its shares were down 1% in early trading following the news of the FCA’s legal action.
[ymal]
The FCA also said that it was conducting separate investigations into other firms under the Money Laundering Regulations 2007. No organisations have yet been named as the subjects of these probes.
NatWest is scheduled to appear at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 14 April. No individuals are being charged as part of the proceedings.
A US federal judge has temporarily blocked the government from imposing restrictions on US investment in Chinese electronics manufacturer Xiaomi.
Under the Trump administration in January, the Department of Defence added Xiaomi to a list of Chinese firms that it alleged to have ties to the Chinese military. Investors with stakes in the listed companies were required to sell their interests by a deadline that was set to go into effect next week.
Xiaomi filed a complaint in a Washington court seeking its removal from the list, arguing that it was not controlled by the People’s Liberation Army. On Friday, US District Judge Rudolph Contreras said that the court had found the Department of Defence had “not made the case that the national security interests at stake here are compelling.”
Contreras added: “Xiaomi is a publicly-traded company that produces commercial products for civilian use, is controlled by its independent board and controlling shareholders, and is not effectively controlled or associated with others under the ownership or control of the PRC or its security services.”
Xiaomi had previously argued that the ban on investment was “arbitrary and capricious” and that it deprived the firm of its right to due process. It said it was pleased with the ruling, but will continue to push for the court to permanently remove the designation.
[ymal]
“Xiaomi reiterates that it is a widely held, publicly traded, independently managed corporation that offers consumer electronics products solely for civilian and commercial use,” the company said in a statement released on Saturday.
Shares in Xiaomi rose sharply on Monday following the ruling, surging more than 10% in early trade.
A ground-breaking artificial intelligence programme has been developed which is set to fulfill the role of a solicitor.
Initially, the system will be deployed to deal with immigration applications. As it learns, however, it will have the potential to revolutionise the legal system and replace expensive solicitors in a wide range of legal tasks.
The project took two years to develop and was created as a partnership between the University of Bradford and London-based immigration specialists A Y & J Solicitors. It will employ complex ‘knowledge graph’ technology and ‘deep learning’ algorithms to analyse case law and learn from active decision-making.
Users will interface with a ‘conversational agent system’ called LILA (Legal Immigration Artificial Intelligence Advice). The system uses ‘explainable artificial intelligence’ in which the decisions it makes are presented in a way that allows humans can understand. It is hoped that the system will make immigration applications simpler and quicker.
The project brief states the system could even be free up to a point - a potential gamechanger for the industry, given solicitors’ fees can run to hundreds of pounds per hour.
A Y & J Director, Yash Dubal, helped develop the system and is one of the professionals who could be directly affected by the disruption it will potentially create in the legal industry. His firm provides visa and immigration services to businesses and individuals and helps UK organisations with migrant sponsor licences. He believes the benefits for society are greater than the loss that may be incurred by wealthy lawyers.
The project brief states the system could even be free up to a point - a potential gamechanger for the industry.
He said: “This might change the entire dynamics of the law industry. It's very early days but if it’s a success in immigration law, then it could be applied to other areas. The goal is to deliver the best legal advice to everyone without having to pay £250-£300 pounds an hour. As an immigrant myself, I know how much of an obstacle that can be.”
He added: “We have to start small before we take a bigger step. It has a lot of potential. It could demonetise the entire sector and in so doing, it will reduce the need for specialised skilled lawyers and that will reduce costs."
Dr Dhaval Thakker, Senior Lecturer in Computer Science in the Faculty of Engineering & Informatics at the University of Bradford said: “The idea is to use ‘Explainable AI’ – where an application designed using AI can explain its reasoning - to assist in making immigration law applications. Law is a very traditional occupation and there has not been much technological innovation in the industry. LILA will be a decision support system, supporting rather than replacing humans."
With immigration applications expected to rise following Brexit, LILA could help with data collection, conducting risk assessments, onboarding clients and various other foundational steps in the process, Dr Thakker continued.
The LILA system, which took two years to develop, is designed to capture and analyse knowledge from solicitors, experts, statutes and case law. It will constantly be updating itself, continually monitoring decisions made by human experts and learning from them.
In addition to collecting data, it will ask questions of clients in the form of text or voice and will even be able to prepare a technical legal response. Ultimately, however, it will be lawyers who make the final decisions.
[ymal]
The project is being funded by an Innovate UK KTP grant of £170,401. The system will be offered to fee-paying clients and will take care of initial advice and the required documents, follow-ups for further clarifications, and checks. Ongoing input will enable it to learn. The responses it generates will initially be checked by solicitors before it is sent to clients.
Dr Thakker added: “We are very excited about this project, it has a lot of scope and there will be a lot of applied research which comes from it. It has the potential to save time and improve efficiency so human agents can do other work.
"If successful, we will look to scale it up or put it into other areas of law.”
Linklaters has become the first magic circle firm to adopt a “black hair code” aimed at protecting the rights of staff with Afro hairstyles in the office.
Developed by the Halo Collective, the “Halo Code” champions the rights of individuals to wear Afro hairstyles in the workplace without fear of being penalised. It seeks for organisations to acknowledge Afro-textured hair as a part of black employees’ culture and identity.
The code asks organisations adopting it to adhere to the statement: “We are a community built on an ethos of equality and respect where hair texture and style have no bearing on an employee's ability to succeed.”
In a statement, Linklaters said that it “explicitly protects (beyond statutory protections) its Black colleagues who come to work with natural hair and protective hairstyles and is actively working to change long-held perceptions of Black hair.”
The firm’s move to embed the Halo Code in its Dress Code policy follows the launch of its race action plan last October, an initiative to increase racial diversity at the company. Targets of the plan include establishing a black diversity council to hold the firm to account on its progress towards fulfilling its commitments and ensuring that 35% of its UK trainees each year come from ethnic minority backgrounds.
Other firms have also been taking concrete steps towards improving racial diversity in their organisations. Fellow magic circle firm Freshfields Brockhaus Deringer announced plans earlier this month to double its number of black associates by 2026.
[ymal]
Organisations that have adopted the Halo Code itself include Fladgate and Spire Barristers, global consumer goods company Unilever and retail companies M&S and New Lok.
Rahn+Bodmer, the oldest private bank in Zurich, will pay $22 million to settle US criminal charges that it helped American taxpayers to defraud the International Revenue Service (IRS) by hiding hundreds of millions of dollars in offshore bank accounts.
The US Department of Justice (DOJ) said on Thursday that the bank had entered a three-year deferred prosecution agreement after being accused of conspiring to help clients file false tax returns and evade US taxes, and had admitted wrongdoing that included helping clients to defraud the IRS.
The bank will cooperate with the DOJ’s crackdown on offshore tax evasion, acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General Stuart M Goldberg said.
“With the April 15 tax filing date fast approaching, there is a clear message for those intending not to pay their fair share – nothing remains hidden forever,” Goldberg continued.
Rahn-Bodmer admitted to having held undeclared accounts on behalf of roughly 340 US taxpayers who, between 2004 and 2012, evaded about $16.4 million in US taxes. It also allegedly opened accounts under pseudonyms or the names of “sham” foundations in Panama and Lichtenstein, and for clients who were exiting other Swiss banks such as UBS Group AG.
The bank agreed to pay a $7.4 million fine, make $4.9 million of restitution, and forfeit $9.7 million of fees.
[ymal]
“Today’s admission and agreement provide a clear path to recovery of funds owed to the U.S. government, and sends a strong signal that offshore accounts are not beyond the reach of special agents with IRS CI,” said IRS-CI Chief James C Lee.
Rahn+Bodmer was founded in Zurich in 1750 and last year had 13.6 billion Swiss francs – the equivalent of $14.71 billion USD – of client assets under management.
Lawyer Monthly hears from Karen Mason, co-founder of Newmanor Law, on how Heads of Terms will be come essential as businesses look to reacquire office space.
Whilst the Government has detailed its roadmap out of lockdown, as yet there has been no guidance issued for office workers returning to their workplaces. Not only will the return to a normal office environment depend on each business, but on four tests that must be satisfied.
The tests include the success of the vaccine deployment programme and evidence to show the vaccines are effective in reducing hospitalisations. Also, it will be essential to keep infection rates below the level that would put unsustainable pressure on the NHS and manage variants of concern.
This all points to the remaining working-remotely or furloughed staff returning to workplaces no sooner than 17 May, which gives occupiers time to consider renegotiating their lease terms or trying to agree a new lease to redefine their situation.
Despite the call from some like Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon, who believes all workers will return to the office full time, many other businesses have accepted that remote working will form part of the working week, which will lead them to question their utilisation of space. Some industry commentators believe now is the right time to downsize and change the office for ever, using a hot-desk approach with team members in the office on different days, whilst others looking to space their people apart, may ironically need bigger offices or more locations.
Critical for businesses in the post-COVID world will be the need to secure a good long-term deal, with the different needs of each business requiring comprehensive Heads of Terms to tie down what is being agreed, whilst outlining the timetable and obligations of the parties during the negotiations.
Critical for businesses in the post-COVID world will be the need to secure a good long-term deal.
Heads of Terms provide a written record of the main terms of a deal, but typically they are resolved before involving solicitors, which can cause problems and delays later. When well-drafted they will provide the framework for the deal and cover how it should be executed. They will also serve later as a checklist that all agreed terms have been included in the documentation.
If Heads of Terms are drafted without advice from an experienced real estate lawyer at the outset there is the very real possibility that a long list of questions will be raised when the solicitors do get involved, which will only delay matters. The process of agreeing detailed Heads of Terms is also a very good test of the parties' seriousness in completing the transaction and can be a good indication of how each party will do business.
The Heads of Terms will typically include points such as the price of the deal, the identities of the parties involved, the basic purpose of the contract, the terms of the contract or transaction, confidentiality agreements and any protection for the parties should the transaction not proceed.
The major reason for seeking expert advice at the outset is to ensure the Heads of Terms do not become legally binding by accident, since detailed provisions will be included in the contract documentation.
Using the phrase ‘subject to contract’ will help, but in many cases, the actions of the parties after the Heads of Terms have been drafted, will have as much impact on whether the provisions are deemed legally binding as the actual wording of the provisions included. For example, should parties start to deliver the obligations set out in the Heads of Terms before a legally binding contract has been agreed, the very act of doing so may be deemed an indication that these obligations are accepted as being legally binding.
For a lease agreement, these provisions might include:
The list is an extensive one, but the more detail included at the start the shorter the negotiations should be. One tip to try and help stop further negotiations becoming protracted is to add a target completion date into the Heads of Terms.
[ymal]
It is vital to ensure that any suggested changes in the Heads of Terms are reflected in the documentation itself, and the key to avoiding provisions accidentally slipping into legally binding status is to move to drawing up final contracts as quickly as possible.
Heads of Terms will become increasingly important in commercial property deals, as they provide the framework for efficient and successful deal execution. Once the Heads of Terms have been agreed they will act as a guide and a benchmark for measuring progress.
It is important to understand the benefits of engaging specialist legal advisers at the outset, who recognise Heads of Terms are not intended to lay traps for the unwary but are all about preparing for a quick efficient deal execution, which should satisfy everyone concerned in the negotiations.
