Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
The deal, reached on Friday, involves a payment of $2.5 billion cash payout by Goldman Sachs Group Inc. to the Malaysian government and a further guarantee that Goldman Sachs will return “at least $1.4 billion in proceeds from assets related to 1MDB seized by governmental authorities around the world,” according to a statement from the investment bank.
In return, Malaysia will drop all criminal and regulatory proceedings against Goldman Sachs, including outstanding proceedings against its subsidiaries and its current and former directors.
The settlement relates to Goldman Sachs’ alleged role in an international scandal involving the 1Malaysia Development Berhad, a state sovereign wealth fund and the investment bank’s client. Goldman Sachs arranged and underwrote bond sales for 1MDB totalling around $6 billion, and allegedly failed to act while $4.5 billion was stolen from the fund.
Money siphoned from 1MDB flowed to a variety of causes, which allegedly included the purchasing of Van Gogh and Monet paintings and the financing of the Hollywood hit The Wolf of Wall Street. $731 million was also discovered in the bank account of Malaysia’s then prime minister, Najib Razak, who also served as 1MDB’s chairman.
Malaysia filed charges against 17 Goldman Sachs employees last year, which the investment bank called “misdirected”.
“This settlement represents Goldman’s acknowledgment of the misconduct of two of its former employees in the broader 1MDB fraudulent and corruption scheme,” said Malaysia’s finance ministry in a statement on the deal.
Goldman Sachs has yet to resolve an ongoing investigation by the US Department of Justice related to the 1MDB scandal.
Nicola Sharp of business crime specialists Rahman Ravelli considers some of the law enforcement issues that need to be clarified by the UK and European Union in the wake of Brexit.
In these strange current times, video conferences are probably more common now than they have ever been. So it is far from surprising that video is the means by which the presidents of the European Council, the European Commission and the European Parliament and the UK Prime Minister held their recent discussions about UK-EU relations after Brexit. The aim, it was announced, was to take “stock of progress with the aim of agreeing actions to move forward in negotiations on the future relationship.” Days later, the UK’s PM Boris Johnson and French President Emmanuel Macron were talking of the need to intensify talks to prevent EU-UK negotiations “dragging out’’ into the autumn.
Such talks – by video or in person – are inevitable due to the seismic shift in EU-UK relations caused by Brexit. What few will have seen as inevitable is that four years after the UK’s Brexit referendum there is still much uncertainty about that relationship. Even the actual departure date remains tentative, with the transition period due to end on 31 December 2020, and deadlines have been missed and redrawn.
Much of the talk, perhaps obviously, focuses on the future shape of business between the two now-separate entities. But alongside this, there has to be concern about the current uncertainty regarding cooperation between the UK and EU on law enforcement; in particular relations regarding extradition. After 31 December 2020 (the end of the transition period), the UK will no longer be part of the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) system. This system exists to ensure that EU member states can return a criminal suspect to the state that is seeking that suspect for trial or to enforce a custodial sentence. If there are no new bilateral arrangements with individual EU states, it appears that the UK will return to the framework of the European Convention on Extradition 1957 (the ECE). This may not sound especially dramatic. But the reality is that it will mean that extradition of a suspect from an EU state will cost more, take longer and be more complex than it is at present.
[ymal]
What will not be so straightforward to quantify about a return to the ECE will be the risk it poses to robust security co-operation between the UK and EU states – and, therefore, the apprehension and trial of alleged criminals. Both French and German courts refused to extradite four individuals caught up in the Serious Fraud Office’s (SFO’s) five-year long investigation into the alleged manipulation of the Euribor rate. The SFO has since announced an end to the investigation, having realised the four were never going to be extradited to the UK. Extradition can only occur within the EU if the alleged wrongdoing constitutes a crime in both the country requesting extradition and in the country that receives the extradition request.
It has been four years since Frankfurt prosecutors dropped their parallel case, as it was found that the alleged rigging did not constitute a criminal offence in Germany. As a case, it shows how issues that can arise if countries are not “as one’’ when it comes to law enforcement. In the wake of Brexit, it is hard not to envisage further divisions. If we take Germany as an example, its constitution has strict limits upon the extradition of its nationals. An exception to this is requests from other EU countries via EAW. Without the UK being part of this scheme following Brexit, it is hard to see Germany complying with any British requests to arrest and return any German nationals.
In order to maintain friendly trade relations with the EU, the UK is expected to stick closely to EU policy on anti-money laundering legislation. In January, the UK implemented the EU’s Fifth Anti-Money Laundering Directive. We have recently seen that plans are in place for the creation of a new, dedicated EU anti-money laundering supervision body and it seems as though the UK is not likely to renege upon its alignment with the EU upon its AML commitments following Brexit. All the signs are that the EU and the UK share a desire to target money laundering. But in specific regard to the new EU anti-money laundering supervision body, the UK’s active participation in such a proposal is uncertain. As a continuing member of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), it is unlikely that the UK will relax its AML controls post-Brexit, which may prevent some divisions.
But, as with much of UK-EU post-Brexit relations, it appears that many more video conferences are required to iron out the details.
Slack Technologies has filed an anti-competitive complaint against Microsoft with the European Commission in an escalation of its months-long battle with the tech giant’s Microsoft Teams workplace communications app.
Key to the complaint is Microsoft’s bundling of the Teams app within its Office 365 software, which Slack claims is a violation of market competition law.
“The complaint details Microsoft’s illegal and anti-competitive practice of abusing its market dominance to extinguish competition in breach of European Union competition law,” Slack wrote in a statement. “Microsoft has illegally tied its Teams product into its market-dominant Office productivity suite, force installing it for millions, blocking its removal, and hiding the true cost to enterprise customers.”
David Schellhase, general counsel at Slack, accused Microsoft of “reverting to past behaviour” in pushing Teams. “They created a weak, copycat product and tied it to their dominant Office product, force installing it and blocking its removal, a carbon copy of their illegal behavior during the ‘browser wars,’” he said.
A Microsoft spokesperson said that the company is “looking forward” to providing information to the European Commission.
[ymal]
“We created Teams to combine the ability to collaborate with the ability to connect via video, because that's what people want," they said. “With COVID-19, the market has embraced Teams in record numbers while Slack suffered from its absence of video-conferencing. We're committed to offering customers not only the best of new innovation, but a wide variety of choice in how they purchase and use the product.”
Both companies have seen a surge in user interest in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic and remote working measures, with Microsoft Teams reaching 75 million users in April and Slack breaking its own concurrent user record in March.
Filing a personal injury claim should be something you’re considering if you’ve been injured because of another person’s negligence. But you may want to talk to a lawyer who can review your case before rushing into the claim process. You’ll work very closely with your lawyer, so you should feel comfortable around them and consider them as a trusted advisor.
It’s essential to have an idea of what critical questions to ask while you’re in the process of hiring a personal injury lawyer to initiate the claims process and manage your personal injury case. Below are some questions you should be asking potential personal injury lawyers before hiring one:
There are various practice areas in personal injury law. While most personal injury attorneys are skilled in these areas, not all of them may be familiar with the specific case type you have. It’s essential to note that some lawyers exclusively focus on certain personal injury law areas. You don’t want to be hiring a workplace accident lawyer to manage an auto accident claim or vice versa. That being said, when speaking to an attorney, it’s important to clarify the type of personal injury law they’re most experienced in.
How much of the attorney’s practice is dedicated to your type of injury and how long they’ve been practicing such an area of personal injury law are important pieces of information to find out from prospective lawyers. Be specific with your questioning and make sure that the personal injury attorney talks about cases similar to yours. Ask how many cases with your type of injury they’ve handled in the past.
Note that just because a lawyer has experience handling dog bite-related injuries doesn’t mean they’re also experienced with workplace injuries. Don’t be afraid to schedule a consultation with another attorney if you aren’t comfortable with your initial prospect’s experience. Don’t stop until you find someone who fits your needs.
Be specific with your questioning and make sure that the personal injury attorney talks about cases similar to yours.
With most personal injury lawyers, you won’t have to pay a fee unless you successfully recover money damages in the lawsuit. That’s because they usually work on a contingency fee basis. The attorney will take a percentage of your award if you recover money damages. If you ask experts when to hire a personal injury lawyer, the answer you’ll usually get is to do it immediately after the accident. After all, you won’t pay until your lawsuit becomes successful.
After the case, between 25% and 40% is typically the percentage that a personal injury lawyer gets. Of course, some attorneys may charge a lower or higher fee. Be wary of those who charge much lower than the standard contingency fee as they may not be really qualified to handle your case. Don’t forget that it’s still essential to understand the attorney’s qualifications before hiring them. Avoid unfairly high fees, too.
Case-related costs may be added to the contingency fee by some personal injury lawyers. It’s important to ask if you’ll be responsible for these “out-of-pocket" costs in the event of an unsuccessful lawsuit.
If a personal injury attorney hasn’t won the personal injury cases they’ve taken on, their vast experience in the specific law area that’s relevant to your case doesn’t matter. Don’t hesitate to ask your prospective personal injury lawyer about their success rate. It may seem indelicate, but it’s one way to see if the attorney you’ll hire has achieved particularly notable case results. The success they’ve experienced from these cases provides knowledge that they can also apply to the situation you’re currently in. After all, you want a top lawyer since it’s your future that’s on the line.
[ymal]
Ask potential personal injury attorney about how much time they can devote to your case at the moment. It’s not a secret that many lawyers take on multiple cases at once, signing up additional clients even if they’re already sitting on your case. Ask when your lawsuit will be filed and let them know that it’s important to get the ball rolling right away.
Just like asking how long the case will take, it’s also important to ask about your case’s worth. An experienced lawyer will be able to provide a good idea of the worth of your case despite the fact that a settlement is never guaranteed. Of course, their answer will be based on their previous experience.
By considering factors, such as discovery, liability, and medical expenses, the attorney should also be able to elucidate why a certain amount is what they believe to be your case’s worth. Some personal injury lawyers make estimates that are too good to be true for the situation you’re in—be wary of them.
Choosing an attorney is an important decision. That’s why it’s necessary to make an informed one. A beneficial and satisfying relationship with your personal injury lawyer can be achieved by weighing your options carefully after asking the questions listed above.
The case was filed in the federal court on Wednesday by Katta O’Donnell, a fifth-year law student at La Trobe University in Melbourne, who owns Australian government bonds.
The suit argues that Australia’s economy will be severely impacted by its government’s response to climate change, and that it has failed to disclose these risks to investors. The court filing claims that, as a promoter of its bonds, the Australian government “owes a duty of utmost candour and honesty” to its investors regarding the material risks posed by climate change.
“The Commonwealth breached its duty as a promoter by ... failing to disclose any information about Australia’s climate change risks,” the filing continues.
The action seeks a declaration from the government that it breached its duty of disclosure and an injunction to prevent the further promotion of the government’s bonds until it complies with this duty.
David Barnden of Equity Generation Lawyers, who is backing O’Donnell’s case, said that he believed it to be the first to deal with climate change as a material risk to the global sovereign bond market.
“Australia is on the frontline of sovereign climate risk,” he said. “We confront the harrowing physical impacts of drought and bushfires and we also face the financial risks of an economy over-exposed to fossil fuels being left behind as the world shifts to clean energy.”
The Australian government is aware of the legal challenge.
“Legal representatives are considering the matter. As it concerns current court proceedings the government will not make any comment,” a spokesperson for the Australian government told Reuters.
Bambos Tsiattalou, the Founding Partner of Stokoe Partnership Solicitors, offers Lawyer Monthly an analysis of private criminal prosecutions, their uses and their shortcomings.
Private criminal prosecutions have recently hit the headlines, with news that Boots successfully brought a private prosecution against a prolific shoplifter after the police had refused to take action. In 2019, a fraudster received an eight-year custodial sentence after a private prosecution was brought by an engineering company. Even Dominic Cummings is the subject of a private prosecution for his notorious breach of lockdown in March, during the height of the coronavirus pandemic.
For wealthy individuals and companies who believe that they have been victims of fraud, private prosecutions may seem like an attractive option and there is a burgeoning market of “specialist” firms willing to provide a “tailor made” prosecution service, receiving large hourly rates for doing so. Many “victim clients” see private prosecutions as a means of retaining greater control over the timing and execution of prosecutions, or as a cheaper and quicker alternative to civil litigation. Sadly, most view them as an additional tool to settle scores, to damage reputations, or to force a settlement of civil proceedings. Although bringing a private prosecution with improper motives is undoubtedly unethical and a misuse of the criminal court process, malice is notoriously difficult to prove and even if established, is not an automatic bar to a prosecution.
In reality, of course, the mere commencement of a criminal prosecution can seriously damage people’s lives, whatever the eventual outcome. Careful and responsible thought should be given before embarking on such a course. Whilst the Crown Prosecution Service must be satisfied that clear evidential and public interest tests are met before bringing any public prosecution, it is a regrettable fact that private prosecutors are not legally required to apply the same high standards and this is, perhaps, what makes it so attractive to some who wish to use the system to settle scores.
[ymal]
A number of right-minded interested professionals have created a body; the Private Prosecutors Association (“PPA”), which has published a voluntary “Code for Private Prosecutors” in a bid to ensure that the professional and ethical duties of private prosecutors are well-understood.
The public interest is not well served by permitting the use of overburdened criminal courts as a new playground for the lavishly funded to resolve private disputes and a proper and enforceable Code is undoubtedly a desirable first step to ensure private prosecutors understand their basic duties, foremost as Ministers of Justice with an overriding duty to the Court, and not as private client litigators acting upon the instructions of an aggrieved “victim”.
The voluntary Code is, however, just that and it may be of concern that it does not appear to have been met with universal enthusiasm, especially amongst some of the “specialist” firms. It places them in a conflicted situation of advising their clients of the strength of their case and bringing in fees.
Where the Director of Public Prosecutions learns of a private prosecution, he has the power, via the CPS, to review, take over and discontinue the prosecution at any stage: either where it is in the public interest to do so, or where the case would not meet the basic evidential standard that would be required for a public prosecution to be brought. While that is an invaluable safeguard for a defendant, it is surely wrong in principle that prosecutions which are evidentially weak and would be “weeded out” pre-charge by the CPS should be allowed, nevertheless, to enter the criminal justice system by the private backdoor, leaving defendants to fall back on an appeal to the CPS to intervene and do the right thing. Let's not forget that the public purse is taking the burden for this.
The public interest is not well served by permitting the use of overburdened criminal courts as a new playground for the lavishly funded to resolve private disputes.
Whatever may be said of the public prosecution service, the CPS does not have a direct financial interest in the cases it prosecutes in the same way the private prosecution firms do, and they do not have the same “client” relationship where an aggrieved but paying “victim” gives instructions to be acted upon.
Private prosecutors will often cite high statements of principle that suggest private prosecutions occupy an important role in our constitution. There will be occasions, inevitably, where genuine cases have slipped through the public prosecution’s net and where a private prosecution should remain a last resort, but often the private prosecutor will seek privately to prosecute as a first resort and will not have even reported the case to the police or CPS for their consideration.
Proponents of private prosecutions often argue that they save the taxpayer the costs of investigating and prosecuting crimes. Yet prosecutors often apply for and receive their costs from public funds; even if the case is one the CPS would never have brought, the defendants are acquitted and even if the case collapses pre-trial. It may be considered wrong that taxpayers should find themselves paying the bill for a prosecution which would never have been brought by the state in the first place and was brought by an individual with enough money to pay themselves.
“No win, no fee” arrangements are not permitted in criminal cases in the UK, to avoid such conflicts of interest, yet such arrangements are openly advertised online when it comes to private prosecutions. Defending against a private prosecution brought without proper disclosure being given is dangerous.
A wrongful death occurs when a person dies due to carelessness, negligence, or the willful act of another person or entity. Family members of a person whose death could have been avoided can file wrongful death claims.
There are several things that can result in wrongful death cases; below are the most common ones.
Car accidents are the most common cause of wrongful deaths in the United States. Over 38,000 people die in traffic accidents every year in the US. Distracted, aggressive, drunk, or impaired drivers, as well as road construction, are the main causes of wrongful deaths on the road.
Medical malpractice is another major cause of wrongful deaths. It happens when a hospital or physician fails to provide an accepted standard of care. Typically, a healthcare provider is expected to ensure proper treatment, diagnosis, and prescriptions. However, even small mistakes in prescriptions, diagnosis, and treatment can result in wrongful death. Extreme cases include anesthesia and surgical errors. Other common medical malpractice mistakes include:
Healthcare providers are trusted to offer standard care and treatment. It can be very traumatic to lose a family member due to a medical error by a physician who is trusted to improve the patient’s life. If this is proven, surviving family members can recover damages as compensation for their loss.
Plane crashes are another cause of wrongful deaths. Airplane accidents can occur due to defective parts of a plane, poor plane design, or pilots' negligence. Wrongful death lawsuits as a result of airplane accidents are usually complicated. This is due to identifying the liable party. Normally, victims’ families sue the airline company. If the accident occurred due to a pilot’s negligence, the airline company could be sued for negligent hiring, training, and supervision. Manufacturers can also be held responsible if the crash resulted from a defective part or aircraft.
Wrongful death can occur due to faulty equipment, improper training, illness due to unsafe environment, fires, and explosions. Other workplace accidents that can result in wrongful death include exposure to dangerous chemicals and falling debris.
Manufacturers, suppliers, distributors, and retailers are liable if they manufacture, supply, distribute, or sell defective products that result in wrongful death. Product liabilities claims include:
Negligence by health care providers in nursing homes is another cause of wrongful deaths. If a person loses their life due to the negligence of a healthcare provider, the nursing home and the caregiver can be held responsible for the death.
If you feel that a family member passed away wrongfully, you can consult an experienced wrongful death lawyer to discuss your rights and options. There are several aspects that should be considered before filing a wrongful death claim. It is, therefore, necessary to hire a lawyer to guide you through this legal process.
More than most qualifications, a law degree will open doors to a wide range of sectors that may not be directly connected to your subject of study. A strong critical acumen, well-developed communication skills and a wealth of technical knowledge are all a necessary part of gaining a degree in law, and will stand you in good stead no matter what field you choose to enter once you graduate.
If you are currently studying law or thinking of studying it, it’s worth taking a look at some of the other career paths that your degree will let you access.
Legal counsel is sought after in every branch of government. US students will want to explore the options available to them at the local, state and federal levels and find the roles that appeal to them. One valuable source in the Washington, DC area is Opportunities in Public Affairs, which lists jobs on Capitol Hill in think tanks, non-profits and government institutions. Vacancies range across numerous fields, including government affairs, policy, legislation, PR, communications, fundraising, research, writing and journalism. Many of these jobs are entry-level or internships ideal for recent graduates.
Those in the UK may want to look into the Government Legal Service and its trainee scheme, for which the application deadline is 28 July. Also of note is the Civil Service Fast Stream, which offers around 700 graduate-level positions each year in a variety of government roles. Each of the Fast Stream’s tracks involves a series of intensive job placements that will leave participants equipped for a senior managerial role in the civil service, and most of them are open to law grads.
Outside of government and typical law firms or corporate placements, graduates with law degrees can often find employment in the financial sector. Law grads make attractive candidates for positions related to taxation, whether in chartered accountancy firms or dedicated tax consultant firms. Investment banks want legal professionals for research and regulatory roles; insurance companies need legal guidance on underwriting, claims and pensions. Knowledge of law is an attractive quality across the financial sector, and there is no shortage of jobs for the qualified.
For law graduates seeking jobs related to the above examples, it will be beneficial to have taken modules or classes in accounting, tax law or an adjacent subject. An undergraduate major in one of these areas would be especially beneficial for American students.
[ymal]
Combining a “traditional” career as a barrister with one in a charitable foundation, non-profit legal aid societies can offer fulfilling work in representing the interests of the economically disadvantaged, similar to the pro bono work occasionally undertaken by for-profit firms. For US students, public interest opportunities can often be found on PSJD. In the UK, legal aid has been placed under greater restrictions in recent years, but remains a worthwhile field in which to specialise, and legal aid roles are often advertised by the Legal Aid Practitioners Group among other bodies.
If you have already begun a law degree, you have likely tapped into a range of online and print resources written by qualified lawyers. Westlaw, Infolaw, LexisNexis, Lawbore and other knowledge bases rely on staff-produced content, as do legal news sites like Jurist, Law.com, Legal Cheek, the Law Society Gazette and countless others, to say nothing of the many respected print and electronic journals that cater to legal professionals. All of these publications employ writers and researchers with backgrounds in law. For grads with an interest in journalism or publishing, any one of these outlets could provide a way into a creatively fulfilling career.
As mentioned at the beginning of this guide, legal qualifications open doors. The simple fact that you earned a law degree means that you are able to work diligently and apply a keen eye for detail to your job, and prospective employers will take note of this. Entry-level jobs in media, marketing, PR, human resources, teaching, advertising and accountancy are generally open to anyone who holds an undergraduate degree, and a background in law is a perfectly valid entry point in many cases.
If any of these areas appeal to you, it is highly recommended that you gain as much relevant experience as possible, ideally through internships or summer placements over the course of your degree. Be sure to tap into whatever career resources your college offers; they will likely be helpful in landing a placement, whether or not you have already graduated.
The Department of Health has conceded that its initiative aimed at tracing contacts of people infected with the COVID-19 virus was launched without conducting an assessment of its impact on the privacy of those involved.
Under General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), data protection impact assessments are legally required to be made as part of any project that involves processing personal data. By admitting its failure to comply with this regulation, the Department of Health has conceded that its coronavirus contact-tracing system has been operating unlawfully since its launch on 28 May, according to the Open Rights Group (ORG).
To track the spread of COVID-19 infections, the Track and Trace programme requires people to share information that may be sensitive. This includes their name and address, people they live with, places they have visited and the names and contact details of people who have been in close contact with them, which may include sexual partners.
Jim Killock, executive director of ORG, described the government’s bypassing of the assessment process “reckless” and an endangerment of public health.
“A crucial element in the fight against the pandemic is mutual trust between the public and the government, which is undermined by their operating the programme without basic privacy safeguards," he said.
[ymal]
Defending the programme, Education Secretary Gavin Williamson has stated that “In no way has [there] been a breach of any of the data that has been stored”.
Other legal specialists have also criticised the government’s actions. Susan Hall, partner and specialist in information and communications technology atClarke Willmott LLP, commented: “If no Data Privacy Implementation Assessment (DPIA) has been carried out for the NHS Test and Trace app, the Government is in blatant breach of Article 35 GDPR which requires DPIAs in these circumstances.”
“The Government comment that “there is no evidence of data being used unlawfully” betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of DPIAs,” she continued. “As Recital 90 GDPR makes clear, DPIAs are intended to be carried out before any processing takes place, as a way of finding out where the risks of data leakage or misuse exist in the proposed scheme and pre-emptively blocking those risks, e.g. by enhanced technical or organisational security measures. It was clear from an early stage that Test and Trace programmes would be needed so the DPIA should have been carried out then.”
Parallel contact-tracing schemes are being carried out in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but have not been accused of failing to comply with GDPR alongside their English counterpart.
On Thursday, the New York Court of Appeals announced the Board of Law Examiners’ decision to cancel the upcoming bar examination, which was to be held on 9-10 September.
“The Board arrived at this decision after careful consideration of current conditions and with a singular focus on the health and safety of all participants,” the Court wrote. “Unfortunately, the global pandemic presents a persisting threat in a growing number of states and therefore, at this juncture, an in-person exam is not yet a safe or practical option in New York.”
The exam’s cancellation follows its earlier postponement from late July, when the licensing exam is typically given. On average, about 10,000 people sit for this exam each year, marking New York out as the single largest bar exam jurisdiction in the US.
The Court’s statement did not announce any alternative arrangements for those preparing to take the bar exam. Other states including Michigan, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Nevada and Maryland have attempted to work around the COVID-19 pandemic by implementing an online test. Others, such as Washington, Oregon and Utah, have announced alternative measures to grant law graduates “diploma privileges” that will allow them to practise law without having taken the exam.
However, the announcement added that the Chief Judge has assembled a Working Group to determine the next steps for the state bar exam. The group will be chaired by retired Court of Appeals Judge Howard A. Levine, and will be tasked with evaluating the current state of the bar exam and other proposed systems for assessing applicants.
The group will aim to produce its recommendations by early August.
According to Bloomberg, Scott Karson, president of the New York State Bar Association, remarked in a statement that “The class of 2020 has been dealt a difficult hand and many graduates are experiencing stress and strain over the uncertainty surrounding the bar exam, a grim job market, and staggering student debt,” adding that the NYSBA will “expeditiously examine the alternatives” for law school graduates seeking accreditation.
