find a solicitor from the best UK solicitors directory
Facebook law Twitter law

Sponsored links

Solicitor.info Blog

What is it to be Brittish…….?

January 24th, 2012

Being British is about driving in a German car to an Irish pub for a
Belgian beer, then travelling home, grabbing an Indian curry or a Turkish
kebab on the way, to sit on Swedish furniture and watch American shows on a
Japanese TV. And the most British thing of all?
Suspicion of anything foreign.

Settlements Announced in Phone Hacking Case

January 20th, 2012

The settlement figures are beginning to roll in – at least, those wishing to divulge what they received from News International. Eighteen victims agreed to put their settlement figures into the official court dockets while another nineteen opted to keep it private. Here’s what we know –

The total paid to these 18 named victims comes to more than £600,000. Allegations were that senior employees and directors at News Group Newspapers (the News International subsidiary that published the News of the World) were aware that their journalists illegally taking part in certain practices and that these individuals were looking to deliberately deceive investigators and destroyed evidence.

It’s important to note that NGN has not admitted or denied any of these claims, even though it agreed compensation could be assessed on that basis. They’ve not commented publicly since the rulings on Thursday.

(These settlements do not include the court costs, which were awarded to each of the recipients.)
Actor Jude Law – £130,000
Journalist Tom Rowland – £25,000
MP Chris Bryant – £30,000
Designer Sadie Frost – £50,000
Rugby Player Gavin Henson – £40,000
MP Denis MacShane – £32,500
Assistant to Jude Law, Ben Jackson – £40,000
Sports Solicitor Graham Shear – £25,000
Denis MacShane former partner Joan Smith – £27,500
Ciara Parkes (PR to Jude Law) – £35,000
Guy Pelly (nightclub entrepreneur and friend of Prince Harry) – £40,000
Former Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott – £40,000

It’s not over yet, though. Neville Thurlbeck, a former editor and reporter for News International posted on his controversial blog after court:

Much more evidence against News International will come in the future.

I worked there from 1988 onwards and I am aware of executives who witnessed practices which would send the share price crashing through the floor.

I expect much of this to come out in industrial tribunals and High Court actions by former members of staff.

But it is the irrevocable loss of trust which could sink it.

Even with the monetary payouts, it’s clear this chapter’s not ended.

Solicitor Spotlight: Got-the-Boot.com (Morris Legal, Ltd.)

January 20th, 2012

Editors note: This week, we’re introducing a new series on solicitors in the UK. We’re shining a light on the best of the best. This week, the first in our Solicitor Spotlight series, we’re introducing you to Got-the-Boot.com.

Launched in January, 2004, Got-the-Boot.com is a team of solicitors who specialize in employment law and work to help those who’ve faced unfair treatment from their employers. Dean Morris and his team operate under the “no win, no fee” legal dynamics, which works to the advantage of potential clients who are unsure as to whether they have a case. The team offers expert employment tribunal representations for those located in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Because of their solid reputation, they have excellent relationships with other employment solicitors who will sometimes step up to the plate if Morris’ team is unable to do so.

This law firm focuses only on employment litigation and as such, is aware of the intricacies involved with this particular sector. They take pride in knowing each team member is as current as the law itself. Employment law can be especially difficult, and for those clients who feel as though they’re outgunned, especially with larger corporations, this team of experts know how to lead.
Never one to underestimate the details, Morris offers an all-inclusive website that provides would-be clients the kind of information needed to make smart decisions. They are members of the Employment Lawyers Association and are quite transparent in their practice and policies – which is rare with some legal firms.

Clients especially appreciate the openness they sense when working with these solicitors. Before they ever even speak with an employment solicitor, odds are they’ve found a lot of valuable information on the well-designed website. With an especially detailed page on employment law, visitors can research a host of considerations, including time constraints associated with these types of lawsuits and other helpful links that explain this niche quite well.

The clients have spoken; in fact, they speak often. Here are a few of the reviews left on the Solicitor.info website for this fine team of legal minds (Please note we paste these reviews verbatim so as not to compromise the integrity of the process):

Madeline Everett writes:

After 13 years of loyal employment, I was dismissed, for a general human error. Dean agreed to take on my case, he was thorough, approachable, and professional. We managed to settle, without attending a tribunal hearing. I am extremely happy with the outcome, and above most I have cleared my name. Thankyou Dean.

Aldwin Roy Williamson left this review for Got-the-Boot.com:

Area of law: Employment law

I find the service very excellent, communication superb and prompt. Every effort was made to look thorougly through my paperwork which reflect and highlight crucial evidence to my case.

Amount charged is in percentage % which I believe is fair

I would definitely recommend anyone to this service and I would use the service again.

Morris Legal Solicitors is the best!

You can visit Morris Legal Solicitors (Got-the-Boot.com) at got-the-boot.com. You also might wish to visit the firm’s latest site at not-my-fault.com. If it’s anything like the ethical practices found at its sister site, we’re sure to see many reviews on this one, as well.

How Low Can it Go?

January 13th, 2012

It never fails – just when you’re sure the crash and burn is complete with News of the World, something a bit more bizarre happens. This time, a former employee is accused of bribing a prison guard. What next?

Remember Matt Nixson? He was the one who found himself on the hot seat after his former employer, News Corp., accused him of “wrongdoing” in the massive scandal that brought an empire to its knees.

These days, Nixson is in the spotlight yet again after accusations have surfaced that he tried to bribe a prison guard for proprietary information regarding Ian Huntley, a convicted killer. He’s being accused of paying a prison guard £750 in early 2009. Remember, too, Nixson has hired a team of solicitors to handing a wrongful termination suit as well as breach of contract against his former employer. Nixson was a features executive of both the Sun and News of the World at various times in recent years.

Interestingly enough, it was News Group Newspaper that says it magically stumbled on the details that Nixson had approached the guard with a handsome payoff – and a warning to the guard that it must be handled with kid gloves. Nixson cited a “new forensic accountant who doesn’t brook any funny business.” He then trades emails with the guard up until he was fired last July after his employer “unearthed” emails that implicated him in illegal activity.

Meanwhile, Nixson’s solicitor is quoted as saying his client “…neither bribed nor ever admitted to bribing a prison officer.” If the alleged charges come to pass, Nixson’s comment to a coworker that bringing the security guard on board was a “freebie” might be hitting closer to home than he realizes – especially if this makes it through law enforcement channels. The problems continue to spill forth, not only on the massive publishing conglomerate, but for the players that drove it into the ditch, too.

Be sure to explore our solicitor review site – and like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter for all the latest solicitor reviews.

SRA: Patronising or Just Being Helpful?

January 10th, 2012

It’s been a bit of a slow waltz with all of the changes in the UK legal sector. With the Solicitors Regulation Authority, the new alternative business structure (ABS) dynamics and just the sense of winds of change, there’s no denying an uncomfortable shift is occurring. But what happens when it appears there are those who are being a bit…well…patronising? That’s exactly what some folks are accusing the SRA of.

Referring to it as a “new caring, sharing SRA”, some editors and other media personnel are wondering if perhaps there’s a bit too much waltz leading by the agency and not enough by solicitors in the UK. The release of a presser in late 2011 certainly didn’t help SRA’s image.

The presser encourages solicitors to “ensure they pay close attention to clients’ needs from the outset” This is necessary, say the authors to “make sure they deliver a proper standard of service”. This has more than a few folks scratching their head and wondering who told the SRA it now has full rein over a firm’s public relations efforts.

The presser reiterates the importance with an example that not all clients speak fluent English and therefore might not able to fully comprehend the jargon found in many client care letters. It’s interesting to note the SRA says it happens quite often and that many solicitors don’t even consider the possibility the written word might pose a few difficulties for some clients.

Most solicitors, however, vehemently disagree and say their focus is always on the details – including how well a client can communicate.

From the looks of the efforts made by the SRA, most would agree it’s simply an effort of building good rapport with solicitors everywhere. The goal is to ensure quality legal services while also keeping those less than ethical efforts at bay.

Of course, with all the simultaneous changes going on within the collective UK legal sector, there’s bound to be a few growing pains. Most everyone agrees that the process is moving right along. The goal is to keep the egos in check as the various transitions are made.

Tesco Law and ABS

January 6th, 2012

Solicitors throughout the UK remain divided on whether or not the Tesco Law was a smart move.

In March, the Tesco law, which significantly relaxes traditional ownership restrictions on legal structures, was passed. It went into effect in October 2011. How well is it doing, though?

The law meant that non-legal entities could own and invest in law firms. From individuals to supermarket chains, the options are endless. In fact, lawyers can now even find their legal firms on the stock market. The government said that the new Legal Services Act would equate to more and better public choices and and Justice Minister Jonathan Djanogly called it a “a landmark day” for solicitors throughout the UK. In October, he said, “Our legal services are already rated among the best in the world, used by millions of people around the globe as well as in the UK, and these changes will set them up to move to new heights. They will enable firms to set up multi-disciplinary practices and provide opportunities for growth.”

But not everyone was convinced. Many legal firms were vehemently opposed to these new structures.

Soon, it was announced that the Solicitors Regulation Authority, or SRA, was being encouraged to consider regulating these ABSs. It was said a more streamlined and “straightforward” approach could be had.

So how are things going now that the new year has begun and the dynamic has had a few months to settle? The groundbreaking ideas began to spill forward as soon as the news was announced. There continues to be a growing interest in this particular sector and the relaxed restrictions has removed some of the classic roadblocks that would have prevented this type of growth a year ago.

Today, the Guardian ran a poll with a simple question: “Is Tesco law exciting or a mistake?”

The results were a bit surprising. Two-thirds continue to believe it’s a mistake A full 66% said the potential exists for failure while 34% say it’s an exciting change.

Of course, this is still in its infancy, but it’s sure to be an exciting change in the UK legal sector. Whether it’s ultimately a pass or fail remains to be seen, but like many grand ideas, it’s sure to ultimately either soar high or fail miserably.

Lawsuit Filed by Man Fired for LinkedIn Profile

January 5th, 2012

Calling it an “inappropriate use of social networking”, BG Group, a gas exploration firm in Reading Berks, ordered one of its employees, John Flexman, 34, to remove his CV which was placed on the business networking site LinkedIn. The primary complaint his employer has is that Flexman checked the box “career opportunities”, suggesting he was open to new career offers.

Once his employer saw his profile, Flexman was ordered, via email, to remove any reference to his current employer and what it feels is confidential information in his CV, including details about how he had reduced firm’s the rate of staff attrition. Upon his return to work after a vacation, Flexman was formally disciplined and warned he still might be fired (instead, Flexman resigned an cited a ‘breakdown in is relationship with senior executives’ as his reasoning).

BG Group justifies its actions by pointing out a conflict of interest that presented with the details their employee included on the site. Flexman claims the details he posted were readily available in the company’s annual reports and that 21 of his colleagues, including the manager of the disciplinary process, had ticked the “career opportunities” box but had not been disciplined.

Flexman said, “He told me to remove from my profile all information regarding BG Group except for job titles and dates. I did not think this was reasonable…it seemed to me that the focus of the charge sheet was the posting of my CV online.”

More than eight million British members are a part of LinkedIn at in 2007, a study was conducted and revealed around half have the box for new career opportunities checked.

Now, both Flexman and BG Group are preparing to present their respective cases at a tribunal. Solicitors in the UK appear to be leaning towards Flexman having a stronger case, though the tribunal will issue the final ruling.

The Downside of Social Networking

December 30th, 2011

The world relies on social networking. In the past decade, sites such as Facebook and Twitter have redefined society – both locally and internationally. Sometimes, though, it falls short and efforts of human nature simply get in the way.

What happens when a parent finds out about his son’s murder through Facebook? It’s most certainly not the way it should be – the bond between parent and child has no room for Facebook, Twitter or even another human being.

It’s intimate and when it’s broken, especially due to the hatred and murder, it is too much to bear. Yet, it’s exactly what happened when Subhash Bidve learned about the murder of his son, Anuj.

Anuj Bidve, 23, was nearing his hotel in Ordsall, located in Salford, the morning after Christmas when he was shot in the head at point-blank range. Police have classified it as a hate crime. As if that weren’t bad enough, Subhash Bidve, the victim’s father, said he heard the news on Facebook. Now, a police chief has said she regrets that this father learned of his son’s death in such an impersonal and insensitive manner. Mr. Bidve says his only goal at this point is to have his son’s body returned to his home in India.

“Nobody official from the UK government or consulate or the Indian government called us and told us about this,” Mr. Bidve told a reporter with BBC Radio 5 Live. “I am really surprised because they confiscated his phone and must have known his father’s or mother’s number. They could have called us and told us what had happened to him.”

Assistant Chief Constable Dawn Copley agrees and confirms that Facebook delivered the news before her officers could. “That is not the way anyone should have to find out something so devastating and we completely understand how upset the family are,” she said. Continuing, she told reporters, “Social networking is instantaneous and we have no control over when and what people post on such sites, but no one should hear such tragic news in this way.”

Adding to this tragedy is the fact that four teenage boys have been arrested for the murder. A fourth suspect is 20. The 16 year old boy and two 17 year old boys have been released on bail, while the fourth teen and the 20 year old remain in jail. No word on who their solicitors in the UK are, but it is being treated as a hate crime.

In the meantime, police are offering a £50,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of those responsible for the murder.

Mr. Bidve continues to plead with law enforcement in the UK to “speed up the process of returning his son’s remains” to India. Indeed, his grieving process can’t begin until he knows his son has returned home, though he says he’s being told authorities “don’t know when it can be done”, though efforts are being made for the family to be flown into the UK as soon as possible.

False Bomb Threat Nets 160 Hours Community Service

December 29th, 2011

It was another day at the office for workers at Lifescan Depot on September 5, 2010 – until an anonymous phone call was made claiming a bomb had been planted on the premises.

Shortly after the bomb threat had been called in, workers were quickly evacuated from at least two job sites and the searches began. Before long, it was determined there was no bomb and then shortly after that, suspicions quickly turned on Rodney Keniston, a security guard for the company. Those suspicions would prove well-founded.

Keniston admitted to law enforcement that he was frustrated with the way another employee was fired and felt as though he had to do something to right that wrong. Keniston also believed he was mistreated at work and said he was bullied on a regular basis. His efforts of righting those wrongs included phoning in a bomb threat located in a trailer on company property.

Keniston’s solicitor in Inverness, Eildih Macdonald says her client was unhappy at work and when his girlfriend was fired earlier in the week, Keniston simply became overwhelmed. “This is truly out of character,” said Macdonald. “He worked in the security department at the time….it’s a very serious offence…he knows that he caused a loss to the company.”

Keniston was ordered to serve 160 hours of community service.

Lifescan Inc. is a Johnson & Johnson Company and is headquartered in the United States. It was founded in late 1986 and has manufacturing facilities in Milpitas, Puerto Rico and Scotland; along with more than 2500 employees worldwide.

Many believe LifeScan is synonymous with blood glucose monitoring. It was LifeScan that introduced OneTouch® Technology. It provides test strips, lancing devices and blood glucose meters and is considered the leader in its sector. Per its website:

Our products are accurate, convenient and can help make testing less painful. In addition, LifeScan offers blood glucose monitoring systems tailored for point-of-care institutions and provides a 24-hour Health Care Professional (HCP) Hotline for technical product support and current regulatory information.

For now, everyone is satisfied with the outcome of Keniston’s criminal sentencing.

Have you had an experience with any solicitors in the UK? Be sure to leave a review of your experience – it’s the ideal way to ensure your voice is heard.

Denials, Contradictions: Goldman Sachs Says It Owes No Taxes

December 23rd, 2011

Even as UK Uncut has put the wheels in motion for legal proceedings against Goldman Sachs, the banking conglomerate still insists it owes no more taxes.

You may remember that UK Uncut is a United Kingdom-based protest group That formed just more than a year ago as a way to protest against those avoiding UK taxes. It also brings to the forefront cuts to various public services.

The pressure group has now filed a request for a legal review regarding the ruling that allowed Goldman Sachs to bypass interest payments on its tax bill. The HM Revenue & Customs ruled that it wouldn’t have to pay the interest. Since then, HMRC has told MPs that it was an error and it’s believed this error, according to the National Audit Office, amounts to something between £5m to £8m.

At least one previous employee for HMRC, who’s now a whistleblower, puts the cost closer to £20m. HMRC insists that’s not accurate, however. Meanwhile, UK Uncut has called for the government to finally begin proceedings that would force large corporations and the “super rich” to pay their due taxes rather than pursue its “unnecessary austerity programme”.

The solicitors in the UK involved with this is Leigh Day & Co and they’ve agreed to take on the case under a
“no win, no fee” dynamic. In its presser earlier this week, human rights solicitor Richard Stein, said, “We wrote to the HMRC in October asking them to quash the deal and reclaim the millions unpaid in taxes from one of the world’s richest banks, but received no response…We chased again in November and they claimed they needed more time.”

For its part, HMRC says its approach to these larger business settlements is to ensure “they pay the right amount of tax has been endorsed by the National Audit Office…It is wrong to suggest that HMRC officials are too lenient on large businesses. Large businesses pay around 60% cent of total UK tax receipts. We collected a record £468 billion in taxes last year.”

HMRC has now declared it inappropriate to comment any further and says it won’t make any more public comments until it’s reviewed and responded to the proceedings.

Sponsored links