Happy New Year to all our subscribers!
The team here at LNTV HQ would like to take this opportunity to congratulate LNTV Expert Panel Member for the Family channel, Anne-Marie Hutchinson OBE (@lawabduction), a partner at London firm Dawson Cornwell (@Dawson-Cornwell), on being made honorary Queen’s Counsel.
Well deserved, and a great start to 2016!
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/queens-counsel-in-england-wales-2015-to-2016
http://www.dawsoncornwell.com/en/about_amh.html
Here at LNTV HQ we are starting to work our last few days before closing the doors on another great year, which saw us deliver 78 excellent continuing professional development/executive education television programmes to hundreds of subscribers, interview more that 150 legal experts including Mr Justice Coulson, upload our programme highlights to YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmxZF_16AYBqklYdMeDqybw), continue to engage with our subscribers on Twitter (@LegalNetworkTV), and welcome two new Writer/Presenters to the LNTV family.
We return refreshed on 4th January, already excited at the plans we have for 2016.
So a big thank you to all our subscribers, readers, and followers – it’s been a great year, and we can’t wait to follow it up with an even better one.
Wishing you the very best for the holiday season, and we hope 2016 brings you everything you hope for.
From all at LNTV HQ.
In response to just how popular last week’s post ‘Marketing Your Firm’ (https://lntvinsight.wordpress.com/2015/11/20/marketing-your-firm/) proved to be, we thought we’d follow it up with another further brief extract from that same forthcoming programme ‘Marketing your Firm’ in the Practice Management & Compliance channel. This time the extract comes from our interview with Ian Stephens, Managing Partner of Saffron Brand Consultants, who talked to us about branding (http://saffron-consultants.com/approach/ian-stephens/)
Interviewer: Talk us through how you go about creating a brand.
Ian Stephens: Well, at the heart of a brand process there are four steps, the first one is what we call discover, so that’s about market research, both understanding what your clients might want and do want. Understanding who you are, what you do, how you do it. So it’s basically the market research end of things. Second step is what we call define, so working out from all those possible things what actually is your strategy. So you define your brand strategy, what message you want to take out to the world. The third stage is design, and that doesn’t only mean visual identity, it means how do we design the service, the experience that we want our clients to have of this service? And then the last one, often the most difficult, is deploy, so how do we make that all happen in the real world as opposed to the PowerPoint presentations we’ve been working with up until now. So a four step process which can be done over weeks or months or even years, but at the heart of it you’re still following that four point process.
Interviewer: So what do you need to think about when assessing the market in which you operate and your role within it?
Ian Stephens: Well, the legal market is a very big and diverse and global market, so there are lots places to be in that market. So part of the research and the defined stage is very important to choose your territory, to choose your story. And there are three, there are three, if you like, overlapping circles, one is what do your clients need, because they’re actually going to pay for something they need, not just what you think they need, so ask them. Those things may be what you think they are, they may be something else. The second thing is what are you good at, and that’s not such a stupid question because you can’t be great at everything and there might be, for whatever reason, you’re particularly entrepreneurial or you’re particularly good at an area of law, you’re particularly good at a type of situation. And then the last one is what can other people do less well than you? And you’re not looking for something unique that nobody else can touch, but you’re looking for emphasis, so you’re trying to find things that clients genuinely do need and that you are, to some extent incredibly able to deliver, and then ideally something that not very many other people can do. Get all those three right and then you start to have a proposition as we might call it, that is quite valuable.
Interviewer: And once you’ve settled on your brand, how do you go about managing it?
Ian Stephens: Well, this is the really tough bit because, actually, defining a story is not so complicated as actually making that real, because a law firm of even 50 people, you’ve got 50 personalities to deal with, 50 human beings to deal with, a law firm of 10,000 people, you multiple that so many times. And so the big challenge in implementing your strategy is to actually deploy it with ruthless precision across all the touchpoints of what we call the client journey, how you manage that client experience at every single touchpoint so that it’s in line with your brand values, and that where things are not in line with those brand values you have to try to take steps to correct them.
We were recently lucky enough to have Sue Stapley, a solicitor and founder of reputation management firm Sue Stapley Consulting (http://www.suestapely.com/) in our studios to discuss how best to market your law firm. Here is a brief extract from that interview, which will be released in full as part of our programme ‘Marketing your Firm’ in the Practice Management & Compliance channel:
Interviewer: Now we all have occasions when we need to make a good impression in a short space of time. What exactly is a mini-pitch or an elevator speech as it’s sometimes known?
Sue Stapley: I think they are sort of interchangeable. My understanding – and I’m not an expert on succinctness – is that it is being able to explain – in one or two sentences at the most – precisely who you are or who the organisation you are representing is or what it does. The phrase ‘elevator pitch’ came from the Americans, of course, who said you should be able to describe your business in the time it takes to travel between floors in a lift or elevator. And the opportunities probably arise most often nowadays at receptions where, I don’t know about you, but I seem to spend probably far too much time standing with an empty glass in my hand in a crowded room talking about my business to other people. And one obviously wants them to remember what it was that one said in case, at some point in the future, they might find your services of use and need to be able to contact you. It is a very succinct statement of who you are and what you do, such that they can remember enough to come back to you if they want to.
Interviewer: So what do you think it should include?
Sue Stapley: The name, and if there’s anything that makes the name more memorable, use that. I’ve been criticised several times for being nothing like serious enough, but my own name is mis-spelt regularly and sometimes mispronounced, and I simply say if you think of shapely, Stapely will probably come to mind. It’s very arrogant but it works, they remember. And one sentence which you will probably need to actually physically write down and work on to get right until it trips off the tongue without your hesitating over it and without you being feeling embarrassed about it, but if you are a small niche practice that specialises in insurance claims then that’s how you want to be seen, and you would say ‘I’m with Seek, Grabbit and Run I’m in a small niche practice that specialises in insurance claims, we’re based in Norwich’. And that’s probably all that you want people to know. That’s enough for them to remember the name, you can make a joke of it if it’s a name that has some joke potential – to make it more memorable – they need to know where you’re placed and they need to know the sector of the business that you’re in.
Interviewer: Have you got any other tips for lawyers that might be thinking about putting together a pitch?
Sue Stapley: Just a few. I think the first and most important is make yourself impossible to dislike. Remember that the client or the potential client is making a choice about a person, a human being or a team of people. Secondly, never forget the support staff, even when you have to do the walk from the lift, which may be with the PA of the person who’s interviewing you, talk to them, be friendly, be nice, they may actually have a voice in the decision-making process so it’s worth being friendly to them as well. And the PA may be the one that’s making the appointments every time you go back into the building, and if she likes you and put in a good word for you it could be helpful. Another quick one is never forget to rehearse your presentation. Just because you’re skilful lawyers and expert in your field – and I would hope you all are – don’t assume that you can do a pitch without rehearsing. Actually put yourselves in the room, get some colleagues to role play the potential client and grill you, and make sure that you go through it clearly so that you know who’s going to say what at what point in the presentation and how. And then finally, follow up: after you’ve done your presentation, hopefully well and successfully, there’ll probably be several weeks delay while they’re seeing other people or considering, you may not hear at once, but the very same day that you’ve done the presentation I would recommend either sending an e-mail or making a phone call – whichever is appropriate – thanking them for their time, saying how much you enjoyed meeting them, maybe seeing their business if you had an opportunity to do that, and how much you’d enjoyed working with them. If there were any questions that you weren’t able to answer at the pitch let them have that information, whether it’s the name of a referee or two who will talk about you positively, or whether it’s a problem that came up that you couldn’t actually offer a solution in the meeting but you’ve had a chance to think about. That demonstrates, again, your enthusiasm for working with them, and that’s always very seductive.
A huge thank you to Sue for making the time to come and be filmed answering our questions, we know the finished programme will be a great one and useful to all those that watch it.
Until next time…
This week’s blog will be delayed as a sign of respect, as the thoughts of all here at LNTV HQ are with those who died or were injured, and their families and friends, in Friday’s attacks.
#SilenceForParis
In Schrems v Data Protection Commission (http://curia.europa.eu/juris/documents.jsf?num=C-362/14), the European Court of Justice looked at whether the Irish Data Protection Commissioners Office had the authority to examine claimant’s concerns regarding the transfer of his personal data under the Safe Harbour Framework from Facebook’s Irish subsidiary to its parent company, Facebook Inc., in the United States of America.
The Court ruled that the Safe Harbour agreement on data transfers from the EU to the US is invalid, as it fails to ensure adequate protection for that data, as required by the Data Protection Directive. The Court has invited the Irish Data Protection Commissioner to consider suspending the transfer of European Facebook users’ personal data to the US. The Court also found that national data protection authorities must examine claims from subjects that a transfer of their personal data to a non-EEA country violates their right to privacy even if the country receiving that information has been found by the European Commission to ensure an adequate level of protection for that data.
This judgment has far-reaching consequences. Thousands of companies share data with US group companies and US-based service provides, such as Microsoft and Google, relying on the Safe Harbour arrangements to enable transfer of that personal data. Now they will need to consider whether they can continue with this, and develop ways of doing so. Just as interesting will be the effect the decision has on the flow of data between the EU and the US, and on the relationship between the countries. UK companies who transfer such data to the US should look to review their data privacy compliance process and ensure that the fundamentals are in place and being followed, all the while eagerly awaiting a new Safe Harbour Framework, which it is hoped will be released sooner rather than later.
Meanwhile, here at LNTV HQ, preparations for Halloween are in full flow. This does not mean dressing the office in cobwebs and pumpkins, but buying trick or treat chocolates and sweets, eating them, and then returning to the shop for more. It’s all in the interests of supporting the British confectionary industry you understand 😉
Have a spooky week….
Here at LNTV HQ many of us looked forward to the extra hour in bed on Saturday night, together with lighter mornings as we wait at train stations to start our commute, but the pay off is that evenings will now be getting darker earlier, and that is something we are not such great fans of. Someone from the team who shall remain unnamed for fear of deserved reprisals, has even declared that they have bought their first Christmas present. Don’t worry, appropriate action will be taken.
Meanwhile in the studio we were fortunate enough to have Richard Kenyon, Head of Employment and Pensions from Fieldfisher LLP, to talk to us about the new Modern Slavery Act 2015, and its implications for companies and organisations. Here is a brief extract from that upcoming programme:
Interviewer: What requirement does s.54 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 impose on organisations?
Richard Kenyon: Section 54 requires commercial organisations to produce an annual slavery and human trafficking statement for each financial year, and that needs to set out what the organisation has done, the steps its taken during that year to ensure that slavery is not taking place either anywhere in the organisation or anywhere in its supply chain. And once the statement’s been prepared it needs to be approved in the case of a company – by the directors, the board of directors of the company, signed off by one of those directors and then published on the company’s website with a link – a prominent link from the webpage.
Interviewer: And what information should be in a slavery and human trafficking statement?
Richard Kenyon: Well, the type of information that should be included is really left up to the organisation. The Act does give a high level framework of the type of information that might be included, and that includes a number of things. First of all, a description of the organisation itself and its supply chain, then the policies that the organisation has in relation to modern slavery, the type of due diligence exercises it carries out within its organisation and its supply chain, how it identifies risk and what sort of Key Performance Indicators it puts in place to ensure that its supply chain are not engaging in modern slavery and, finally, the type of training of the employees in the organisation that the organisation undertakes.
Interviewer: Given that an organisation can discharge its duty simply by stating that its taken no steps, why does the government think that any organisation is going to go to some considerable trouble to supply this information?
Richard Kenyon: That’s right that an organisation can comply with the legislation by putting out a statement that says we’ve taken absolutely no steps to ensure that modern slavery isn’t taking place. But the government is introducing this legislation in a kind of compliance and social shaming way, so that the statement itself will open up the organisation to public view, and the idea is that through pressure from NGOs and the public, and through peer group pressure, that organisations will want to show that they take this issue seriously. And therefore, peer group pressure will result in more and more information coming into the public domain as organisations take more and more steps is the idea.
Interviewer: So which organisations does this requirement apply to?
Richard Kenyon: Well, it applies to commercial organisations, which is bodies corporate or partnerships, which produce goods or services and which have a turnover of £36 million or more, some of which is done in the UK, so it’s businesses that are operating in the UK which have a turnover of £36 million or more.
Interviewer: And there was some debate, wasn’t there, about where to set the threshold of turnover? How did they arrive at £36 million and what are the reasons behind it?
Richard Kenyon: Well, the government consulted over a number of figures, the lowest was £36 million and the highest was a billion. In fact, only 7% of the respondents to the consultation suggested that it should be a billion pound turnover. The government ultimately settled for £36 million largely because, first of all, that was the number that the majority of respondents to the consultation requested; secondly, there is in the Companies Act a definition of medium sized businesses which is businesses which have a turnover of £36 million or less, so £36 million or more is large businesses. And the rationale is that large businesses will have the commercial clout to push this issue down through their supply chains by requiring their suppliers to provide information about what they’re doing in relation to modern slavery.
This week we were lucky enough to be joined in the studio by Richard Williams, Senior Policy Executive at the Solicitors Regulation Authority, to talk about the future of Continuing Professional Development for our upcoming programme ‘SRA Competence Statement and Toolkit’, in the Practice Management & Compliance channel.
Here’s a sneak peak at part of Richard’s interview, before the programme’s release date:
Interviewer: And the key document in this is the Competence Statement, isn’t it? And it’s a fairly extensive document. Does it run the risk of being over-prescriptive?
Richard Williams: The Competence Statement really just articulates what all practicing solicitors need to do in order to do their job to the best of their abilities. But as an approach, our new approach to ensuring continuing competence is less prescriptive than the current requirement to undertake 16 hours. The 16 hours requirement is, in fact, a blanket approach, it applies to all solicitors, irrespective of their career, their experience, and also their role. With our new approach, solicitors can think about what they need to do in order to deliver a proper standard of service and meet their regulatory responsibilities.
Interviewer: So Principle 5 is what underlies all this, how do we interpret that in the light of the new CPD requirements and the Competence Statement?
Richard Williams: All solicitors have a regulatory requirement to deliver a proper standard of service, and this is articulated in Principle 5. The Competence Statement can help solicitors deliver this particular obligation, and there are two ways in which it does that. Firstly, the Competence Statement articulates what a solicitor needs to do to practice effectively. And, secondly, the Competence Statement in the context of our new approach can be used by solicitors to enable them to reflect on their practice and identify any learning and development they need to do in order to continue to practice effectively.
Interviewer: So how does the SRA believe it’s going to be using the Competence Statement in future?
Richard Williams: We use the Competence Statement as a key mechanism in order to allow us to ensure that the consumers of legal services are protected. It’s really important that solicitors do their job effectively and practice effectively, and the Competence Statement and our new approach to ensuring on-going competence enables us to do this in two ways. Firstly, solicitors have a regulatory responsibility to deliver a proper standard of service, and under our new approach to CPD they’ll have to reflect on the quality of practice in relation to the Competence Statement, and identify where they may have any learning and development needs. As part of our Training for Tomorrow programme we’re also considering the introduction of an assessment framework. We will consult on this later in 2016. The point of the assessment framework will be to enable solicitors to demonstrate to us that they are competent at the point of admission to the profession, so in that way the Competence Statement will critical as part of ensuring that consumers and legal services are protected.
Interviewer: So some people might say that this looks very much like a box ticking exercise which, of course is what CPD was always criticised for. What would you say to them?
Richard Williams: Absolutely not. Our new approach is much harder than a solicitor attending a course towards the end of the CPD year to gain a specific number of hours. Solicitors will need to think really hard about what it is that they need to do in order to deliver a competent service and meet their regulatory obligations. As a regulator we take this really seriously. As a result, under our new approach all solicitors will be required to make an annual declaration that they’ve reflected on the quality of their practice. They’ve identified their learning development needs and addressed them, and we’ll monitor that.
That’s all for this week – a VERY happy bank holiday weekend to all our readers and subscribers!
On the back of the latest London Underground tube strike, in which all at LNTV HQ showed utter determination in getting here, whether it be on foot, train, bike, boat, and even scooter, the government published the Trade Union Bill 2015-2016 (http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2015-16/tradeunion.html).
The Bill went through its first reading on 15th July, and a date for its second reading is currently still awaited. The interesting aspect of the Bill is that, depending which side of the fence you fall on, it’s either an all-out attack on the hard working people of Great Britain who are simply looking to protect their rights, or it is a welcome piece of new legislation designed to stop the country being held to ransom by workers who refuse suggested changes to their employment and pay.
The Bill does not in any way stop the ability to strike, but it does change the administrative elements around a suggested strike action, meaning that a higher hurdle will need to be jumped to have the ability to strike in the first place. For example, the Bill:
The Bill is accompanied by three consultations which ask for opinions on:
These consultations are open until 9th September 2015.
Until next time…
We had the lovely Jonathan Hearn in the studio this week to talk all things employment disciplinary and grievance procedures, including the cases of Toal v GB Oils Ltd (2013), Roberts v GB Oils Ltd (2014), and changes to the Acas Code. Jonathan is the Legal Director at DLA Piper, and has been a regular contributor to our programmes over the years, for which we are very grateful: (https://www.dlapiper.com/en/uk/people/h/hearn-jonathan/)
Here’s a sneak peak of the interview with Jonathan, before release of the full programme in July:
Interviewer: Fairness and transparency are two of the basic principles to be aware of when handling workplace disputes. What are the key provisions of the Acas Code?
Jonathan: Okay, well, you’ve got things like acting consistently, and you can see, you’ll see that most of these are really for the employer, acting consistently. Having a proper process of investigation to establish some facts, giving an individual a right to know what they’re said to have done and have an opportunity to respond to it. A right of appeal if they’re unhappy with the outcome, and a right to be accompanied by a companion of their choice.
Interviewer: Looking at the right to be accompanied, this is set out in s.10 of the Employment Rights Act 1999. What exactly does s.10 say?
Jonathan: Okay, so a person has a right to be accompanied by a colleague or a trade union official at a formal meeting as part of a capability or conduct process or a grievance process. The person accompanying can be a colleague or a trade union official and, incidentally, the trade union angle has nothing to do with trade union recognition or anything like that, it’s if the individual is in a trade union and an official will come along with them. The employer has to allow postponement of up to five days if the person isn’t available. The person can speak in the meeting but mustn’t answer questions on the employee’s behalf.
Interviewer: So the request that the worker makes has to be reasonable. Does that mean that they’re restricted in their choice of companion?
Jonathan: Well, the request has to be in a reasonable amount of time before the meeting for the employer to respond to it and to accommodate it, and it used to be that the Acas Code said that, or gave clear indications, that the choice of companion had to be reasonable, as well as the exercise of the right to request had to be reasonable. So the choice of companion Acas considered and the Code used to say that, for example, if the person requested was a long way away then that would be an unreasonable request, or if the choice of person would disrupt the process then that again would be an unreasonable request.
Interviewer: That seems fairly sensible. What’s wrong with that?
Jonathan: Well, the problem with it is that it fetters, it restricts the choice of companion and it appears now from more recent case law that we have that that wasn’t the intention, that’s not how s.10 should be read. So we have the case of Toal v GB Oils where the Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that the right, exercising the right to be accompanied has to be exercised reasonably, for example, has to be exercised in good time.
Until next time…
LNTV insight 