However, for those firms not in the midst of crisis management and who realise that online marketing is now very significant for solicitors, those firms should be checking and considering the useability of their website.

It is not uncommon for law firms to have a website created and then to largely forget about it, save perhaps for adding content. In the last year there has been a marked increase in blogging by lawyers and social media activity, but it is worth remembering that most traffic to websites comes from search engines, especially google.

Technology, like the Legal Services market itself, is changing incredibly fast. One aspect of the rapid change is that we are all browsing less and less on traditional desktops or even laptops and instead, increasingly we are using tablets of all shapes and sizes and smartphones, with latest data suggesting that desktop searching is less than 80% now and falling rapidly.

In fact, with the recent popularity of tablets such as the IPad, google nexus and Kindle to name just a few, this research suggests that tablets are even more popular for web browsing that smartphones at the moment.

Same website different look

Having had a website designed and implemented in the last 5 years, many law firms may believe that the site will look the same and have the same overall impact on visitors regardless of device on which it is viewed. This is very wrong.

Many law firms are also surprised to be told that an average visitor to a legal website will spend less than 2 minutes on page, so initial impressions and concise and clear information are as vital for legal webpages as for other business sectors.

A searcher on a smartphone is also more likely to be out and about and to want basic information only, such as a local provider, rather than in-depth information about a topic or supplier, so there is a fundamental difference between the right content for that type of search as opposed to a tablet or desktop search where the searcher may want more or is prepared to delve a bit deeper into the site.

Given the above, it makes sense to consider getting your website revamped and simplified for the smartphone market and to take advantage of the fact that google has a different search engine for mobile searches than for desktop (many are also unaware of this). It is now possible to have a website modified so as to be seen differently on mobile and tablet searches at relatively modest cost and a good example of a firm who have recently done this can be seen by searching on a smartphone or tablet for Lloyd Green Solicitors.

Tablet conundrums

In addition to the desktop/smartphone differences, there have been rapid changes to the tablet market. In the last 6 months, many new tablets have come onto the market at a range of different sizes, with the latest trend being towards tablets which are around 7 inches tall, halfway between a mobile phone and a full size IPad. The difficulty with these is that a website will not necessarily look the same on this size device as it would on desktop or smartphone or an IPad. Failure to consider how your website now looks on these devices can easily result in lost visitors and potential work. The principle is in some ways very similar to solicitors rightly suggesting to clients that they need to review and update their contracts regularly.

As an example, and I am in no way picking on this firm, Orbis Solicitors have a very nice website, which is modern and which has clearly had money and time spent on deign and useability. I particularly like the very prominent use of video on the homepage. Their site looks great on desktop and IPad, but on my 7 inch google nexus, it frankly looks a mess.

In summary, in market where many law firms are slow to react to technological changes and may not even be aware of them, being ahead of the game can reap real and lasting rewards based on a competitive advantage. A mobile version of your website plus some testing and tweaking on a range of tablets are definitely worth doing.

Fixed term employment contract

In order to examine fixed term contract law in more detail, it is important to look at fixed term employment contracts. In order for an employee to be on a fixed term contract they must have a contract of employment as well as a stipulated end date or provision that states that the contract will terminate once a particular milestone has been met or once a project or task has been completed or finalised. Common examples of scenarios which lead to such fixed-term contracts include a fixed-term employee providing maternity cover for an existing employee who is on maternity leave or a seasonal employee who is taken on to work for a particular busy period such? as Christmas or during a sale.

?Cannot be treated differently

If it is clear that an employee is on a fixed term contract, there are a number fixed term contracts employment rights that become applicable. These rights are covered by the Fixed Term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations of 2002 (“Fixed Term Employees Regulations”). Individuals on fixed term contracts cannot be treated less well than permanent employees in a similar role, unless there is a justifiable reason to do so in the form of a clear business objective. Such a test will need to firstly determine a comparator; someone who is doing similar work but on a permanent contract of employment. If an employee is being more negatively, they will be entitled to bring a claim in the relevant Employment Tribunal.

Redundancy and dismissal

As well as ensuring that pay, benefits and conditions are in accordance with permanent equivalents, fixed term contracts redundancy rights and certain rights against dismissal also apply. An employee who has been continuously employed on a fixed term contract for two years or more will be entitled to statutory redundancy pay and any other redundancy rights that would be afforded to a employee working on a permanent basis. However, employees on fixed term contracts may not be given the protection of company specific contractual redundancy arrangements if there is a clear business objective for doing so.

With regard to dismissal, an employee on a fixed term contract who has the necessary length of service may be able to claim unfair dismissal if a fixed term contract is not renewed. However, such a claim will not be successful if a proper procedure and process is followed. As well as having rights in relation to unfair dismissal, fixed term contract employees are also entitled to a written statement outlining the reasons for the non-renewal of their contract.

Other Rights

Fixed term contract law also makes it clear that fixed term employees have the right to view permanent vacancies. ?There are a number of other rights under which fixed term contract workers are protected, and it is important to look at the Fixed Term Employees Regulations and the Employment Act 2002 in order to gain a more detailed understanding.

Notice period

With regard to notice period, when a fixed term contract is for either three months or less there must have one weeks notice (on either side) after one month’s continuous service. ?This increases after two year?s continuous service, at which point the notice period becomes one week for each year worked.? Failure to provide adequate notice periods may potentially result in a breach of contract. However, it is important to note that fixed term contracts will automatically end when the agreed date is reached, and there is no need to provide notice for termination in such cases.

It is clear from the above that employees on fixed term contract have more rights than temporary workers, but do not have the same protection as full-time, permanent employees. However, the above is a brief summary and it is important to look that both the specifics of the particular contractual relationship being examined and then analyse the specifics of the relevant contractual wording in order to full appreciate fixed term contract law.

Gov UK – Guide:? Fixed-term employment contracts

https://www.gov.uk/fixed-term-contracts/what-counts-as-a-fixedterm-contract

Shoosmiths – Fixed term employees: top ten myths expose legal risks for employers

http://www.shoosmiths.co.uk/client-resources/legal-updates/Fixed-term-employees-top-ten-myths-expose-legal-risks-for-employers-1284.aspx

Contract law generally

http://www.darlingtons.com/site/srvbusiness/srvcontractlaw/

Understanding Unfair Dismissal Basics in Employment Law

Being unfairly dismissed from a job can be a very traumatic experience through which to go. A job is an important part of happiness and it provides you with money for rent and security for you and your family. Whether you’ve been treated unfairly at work in some kind of discrimination or if you’re unfairly dismissed from your position, the ramifications can be extensive.

But what constitutes as unfair dismissal?

In this article, we’re going to look at what constitutes justifiable reasons for dismissing employees from a workplace as per the Employment Rights Act (1996). This legislation states that an employer must demonstrate the reason an employee was dismissed if they have been employed for more than 1 year if the employee started before April 2012 or 2 years if employed since then and the reason must be justifiable according to this law. Let’s take a look at the reasons why someone could be dismissed according to the Act.

At a Glance:

1. Lack of qualifications or capability to do the job
2. Breaching standards of conduct for the company
3. Serious misconduct, either a one off event known as gross misconduct dismissal or based on a series of misconduct issues where warnings have been given and formal process adhered to.
4. An employee is absent from the workplace for an extended period due to ill health
5. An employee is made redundant
6. It has become illegal to continue employment

Unfair Dismissal in More Detail

• Let’s start off with issues surrounding capability or qualifications. If someone is hired and it later transpires that they are not capable or qualified to carry on, whether due to sickness or some kind of untruth being told regarding their application, then this may be fair dismissal of that person. However, the employer will have to prove that this was the case should it come into question.

• Appropriate conduct within the company and towards staff members is expected of all employees. If an employee breaches this ‘reasonably expected’ conduct, especially in the case of gross misconduct, a case for dismissal may be fairly raised.

• In times such as recessions, redundancy cases are often used in order to reduce costs of staffing to companies. However, things have to be done correctly and an employer must demonstrate that the position has become redundant to an employment tribunal which will decide whether redundancy has been used as a cover-up.

• Another instance of dismissal is due to legislation such as legal reasons coming to light meant that it was not legal to continue employing some individuals. For example, changes to working Visa or immigration legislation surrounding the EU could be changed. These cases are often harder to defend if you’ve been unfairly dismissed as the reason itself is a legal matter and inherently clearer cut.

What to do If You May Have Been Unfairly Dismissed

Deciding whether or not you’ve been unfairly dismissed is something about which a decent idea can be gained by having a free consultation with an employment law specialist. If your unfair dismissal case falls into the grounds of any of the above examples, it’s important to get in touch with an employment law solicitor to find out if you are eligible to take legal action against your old employer.

If you take legal action, the determination of whether the dismissal was or wasn’t fair will be made by an employment tribunal based on the substantial merits of each individual case.

Sources: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/18/part/X

Lawsuit Culture: A History of Injury Compensation Claims

The year was 1994 and a woman was on her way to McDonald’s for some refreshments, on the list of which was to be a cup of coffee. Little did she know at the time, but she was about to sustain a personal injury which would hit the headlines of newspapers the world over. Mrs Liebeck carefully placed a coffee in between her legs, lid removed, in order to apply sugar and cream to her hot beverage. It spilled over her lap and caused third degree burns to the region around her pelvis. Not long after, a damages claim was launched against McDonald’s Restaurants which saw the claimant securing not only $160,000 in compensation for medical expenses but also £2.5 million in punitive damages. The coffee was, apparently, too hot to be legal without sufficient warning.

There was a great deal of discussion on the Liebeck VS. McDonald’s case and the lawsuit culture of which it was potentially a symptom. But it’s not just the US which stands accused of making too many compensation claims for such incidents. The United Kingdom supposedly has a ?compensation culture?, a buzzword hot in the media for a number of years now. Looking into the history of compensation culture for the purposes of statistical data gathering, insurance company Aviva released a list of accident claims which vary from the obscure to the downright hilarious. Let’s take a peek down memory lane at how the whole business may have looked in its infancy.

1878
The earliest of the cases dated back to the start of 1878 where a man who worked as a grocer in Lancashire slipped during a game of blind man’s bluff. He launched an injury claim and secured £15 in compensation, a sum of money with a modern day equivalent of £720.

1878
Also in 1878 was an innkeeper from Handsworth close to Birmingham who inadvertently drank a poison which he had assumed to be a sleeping medicine. He successfully won £1,000 for his mishap, the equivalent of £48,310 today.

1885
A claimant who worked as a pharmacist in 1885 and was from Dublin, Ireland, slipped and fell sustaining an injury on the marble steps of a Turkish bath. He was compensated with £33, the equivalent of which today is £1,800.

1886
In 1886 an artist from Swansea was blown down by a gale on a particularly windy day in Wales. He was recompensed £30 from the local council, the equivalent of £1,590 today

1892
In 1892, a man from Essex who became overly enthusiastic during a food fight was injured whilst throwing rice around at a wedding. He secured £50 in personal injury compensation, the equivalent of around £3,000 today.

1895
In 1895, a man who worked as a merchant and was from Glasgow, Scotland was injured after jumping out of bed to catch his wife while she was in the process of fainting. His accident saw the losing side compensating him £42, a reimbursement with an equivalent of £2,550 today.

1900
The turn of the new millennium in the 1900s saw one of the first supermarket accident claims where a bank clerk slipped on an orange peel negligently left on the floor and secured £156 in compensation, an equivalent of £8,900 in the modern world.

1904
A few years later in 1904, a gentleman enjoying rubbernecking an accident elsewhere on the road while travelling in a tram hit his head on a metal pole. He secured £7 pounds in compensation, a total of £401 in today’s terms.

Conclusions

Many believe that Liebeck VS. McDonald’s is a particularly noteworthy for the amount of compensation which was received and rightly so. It’s a tricky anthropological point of debate as to how our societies evolved to a stage where we’re apparently so keen to take legal action against one another. If one thing is certain, it’s that people are always going to have axes to grind as long as they’re harmed by the negligent actions of others. As to which side of the pond the biggest culprit can be found, it seems like the UK certainly has the right ancestry to put up a good fight for the title.

Sources:

http://www.aviva.com/about-us/heritage/our-archive/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants

As the above article from My lawyer shows, it’s not only in England & Wales where there is a furore over the proposed legal aid cuts. This story is about ongoing protests in Canada.

There are many argumnents about legal aid, on moral, legal and financial grounds. There is little doubt that the legal aid ssystem in England & Wales has become very expensive and in some areas of law, Human Rights cases particularly springing to mind, the system has been exploited. The current system also isn’t great for lawyers, there is now huge bureacracy in form filling aside from the low rtaes payable for this type of work.

On the financial side, the argument goes that whilst legal aid is expensive, remove it and cots scould be even higher due to additional wasted court time of litigants in person, additional burdens in Local Authorities dealing with individuals not separately advised and so on and so forth. Clearly, this is a genuinely difficult issue, but there is also a wider econmoc issue surely …. with strikes in the Uk this week wand public sector workers outrgaed that their pensions are being cut back, is this really symptomatic more of a new economic reality … we simply can’t afford, as a country, to pay for these things anymore.

Looking at what’s going on around the world can at least give an insight into the fact that we are genuinely in a new economic era internationally. These same issues are happening in other countries. None of this means we are in favour of cuts, this simply demonstrates, as is evident from the economic crisis overall that individuals, companies, local authoririties and Governments cannot continue to live beyond their means.