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 June of this year we released programme 5909 in the Local Government channel: Non-delegable Duty of Care. Here’s a short clip from that programme: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0syB_RUaHXQ
The programme looked at non-delegable duty of care in the tragic case of Annie Woodland, a ten year old Basildon schoolgirl who suffered hypoxic brain damage after diving into the deep end of a swimming pool during a school swimming lesson. The school did not have its own pool, and so had arranged for the swimming lessons to be carried out by a third party company. As a result of her accident Annie brought a claim against the school, the preliminary issue to be decided being whether or not a non-delegable duty of care was owed by the school to her. Mr Justice Langstaff rejected the claim on the basis that there was no non-delegable duty owed. She appealed to the Court of Appeal and her appeal was rejected, the majority holding that the most important factor was that the school did not have control over the swimming lesson and over the place where the accident had taken place. However the Supreme Court took a fresh look at the law and decided that a school does owe a non-delegable duty in respect of the care of its pupils. The swimming lessons were an integral part of the teaching function of the school and, in those circumstances, even though the school had delegated the performance of that duty to an independent company, which itself may have further delegated responsibility, either to employees or other sub-contractors, the duty remained that of the school and, therefore, if there was negligence on behalf of anybody who was involved in the delivery of that duty the school would retain responsibility.
Having established a non-delegable duty towards her, Annie went on to succeed in her civil claim based on the swimming teacher and lifeguard failing to properly supervise her, which caused a delay in her being spotted hanging in the water. The judge said that the swimming teacher and the lifeguard should have noticed that Annie was drowning sooner than they did, and their actions “…fell far below the standard of care reasonable to be expected of a teacher…“. Essex County Council would therefore be held liable for their negligence, however interesting an issue then arose as to whether it was just and equitable for the lifeguard (who was insured, whereas the swimming teacher was not) to indemnify the Council.
It was held that the swimming teacher was 2/3rds liable (she was in charge of the class) and the lifeguard was 1/3rd liable (she was on the opposite side of the pool to where the swimming lesson was being carried out). The Court therefore stated that the lifeguard’s insurers should contribute 1/3rd of the Council’s liability to the claimant. This amount is to be assessed at a later date (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2015/273.html)
Our programme also considered the case of NA v Nottinghamshire County Council (2015) (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2015/1139.html), which concerned a claim brought by Natasha Armes who was born in 1977 and spent various amounts of time in foster care and residential care during her teenage years. In connection with two particular periods of foster care, one for around one year, and one for around three/four months with Mr and Mrs B, Ms Armes alleged that she had suffered physical abuse at the hands of the foster carers and, in the case of Mr B, sexual abuse. In order to succeed in establishing liability for what had happened in these foster placements, which was the most serious part of the case in terms of harm, she alleged that the local authority was vicariously liable for foster carers, and her claim on that ground failed, but she also alleged that the local authority owed her a non-delegable duty of care so that when she was placed with independent contractor foster carers and those foster carers assaulted her, the local authority was automatically liable for that negligence. She also failed on this second issue.
The claimant then appealed against this decision, but the Court of Appeal have dismissed that appeal, and unanimously rejected the notion that local authorities could owe a non-delegable duty of care for foster parents. The Court said this would be contrary to public policy, as such a wide duty would effectively impose strict liability.
Until next time…
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
The Smoke and Carbon Monoxide Alarm (England) Regulations 2015 come in to force in England on 1st October 2015 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/1693/contents/made).
The Regulations require landlords of private rented properties to install a smoke alarm on each storey of the property on which there is a room used wholly or partly as living accommodation. In addition, a carbon monoxide alarm must be installed in any room which is used wholly or partly as living accommodation and contains a solid fuel appliance.
At the start of each new tenancy the landlord of their agent must carry out tests to ensure that the alarms are in proper working order on the day the tenancy begins. For the purposes of the Regulations, a new tenancy is one granted on or after 1st October 2015, but does not include renewals or statutory periodic tenancies arising from fixed term tenancy that started before this date.
Where it is believed that a landlord is in breach of the Regulations the local authority must serve a remedial notice on them within 21 days. Landlords will then have 28 days to comply, or risk penalty charges of up to £5,000. The local authority must also, with the occupant’s consent, arrange for the remedial action specified in the notice to be carried out.
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!
In Halle v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2015] UKSC 34 (https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2014-0185-judgment.pdf), the Supreme Court got to grips with whether a person had made themselves intentionally homeless.
In this case the claimant, (H), had given up her tenancy of a bedsit in 2011, due to not being happy about smells there. She moved in to temporary accommodation until she was asked to leave due to overcrowding. She therefore applied to London Borough of Waltham Forest Council for accommodation as a homeless person. The Council decided that H was homeless, she was eligible for assistance, and she did have a priority need, but she had become homeless intentionally. A reviewing officer subsequently came to this same decision, due to the fact that she had given up her room in the bedsit, and so had stopped occupying accommodation available to her. H’s argument that she could not continue to stay in the bedsit due to the smell was rejected.
H had given birth to a daughter after leaving the bedsit. She submitted that, because the bedsit was for single people only, she would have had to have left the bedsit in any event on the birth of her daughter. She argued that the birth of her baby broke the chain of causation between her intentionally leaving the bedsit, and her homelessness when the Council considered her application for accommodation.
After agreements with the reviewing officer’s decision from both the County Court and the Court of Appeal, the matter went before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court had to consider whether the reviewing officer was entitled to come to the conclusion that H had become intentionally homeless when she left the bedsit, considering that should would have been homeless anyway by the time her application was considered, due to her having given birth to a baby who would not be allowed in the bedsit.
The Supreme upheld H’s appeal. They agreed that the birth of H’s baby severed the casual connection between her choosing to leave the bedsit and therefore making herself homeless, and the homelessness she was subject to when the reviewing officer made his enquiries. It could not be said that if she had chosen not to leave the bedsit she would not have become homeless.
As a result of this important decision, local authorities will have to carefully consider the actual cause of an applicant’s homelessness, both when making an initial decision, and on review of such applications.
Until next time…
On Monday 18th May, staff from LNTV HQ together with staff and students from the University of Law will be taking part in the London Legal Walk 2015, the largest annual gathering of lawyers and the judiciary in the world: http://www.londonlegalsupporttrust.org.uk/our-events/london-legal-walk-2015/
This 10K walk through London raises important funds for numerous agencies in London and the South East, such as the Access to Justice Foundation, Brixton Advice Centre, the Disability Law Service, RAD Deaf Law Centre, Rights of Women, Shelter, and the Royal Courts of Justice Citizens Advice Bureau, who give free legal advice to members of the public on a wide range of different legal issues such as debt, employment, modern day slavery, homelessness, disability, and the removal of care facilities.
Last year over 8,200 people took part in the London Legal Walk to support this important fundraising event, and this year we hope even more people will join us and take up this crucial cause. Take a look here at the numerous firms, chambers and other legal organisations who have already signed up to take part: http://www.londonlegalsupporttrust.org.uk/our-events/london-legal-walk-2015/teams-in-london-legal-walk-2015/
So sign up and join us, the more the merrier, there’s even a party at the end, which is reason alone to get involved!
We’d also love you to tweet us on the day: @LegalNetworkTV
Until next time…
LNTV insight 