Consumer Rights Act - Goods - Guidance for Business from H.M. Govt.

Advising consumers in this area of law (which has changed in the last few years) is extremely difficult to do (cost-effectively), although we have more experience of advising businesses.

This is a field in which we tend to guide our business clients towards a well-written H.M. Govt. guide:-   

https://www.businesscompanion.info/sites/default/files/CRA-Goods-Guidance-for-Business-Sep-2015.pdf

I hope that the above is helpful, but if you are a business who would appreciate further help in relation to this area of law, do please contact us.

Regards

contact@EquitableLaw.com

www.EquitableLaw.London

+44 (0) 20 8780 3319 - Landline and e-Voicemail

Incentivisation Arrangements for Staff - Designed For Business Success

Following a flurry of recent instructions, all upon similar themes - Equitable Law has recently updated its 'Note' - On the methodologies for efficient and cost-effective ways for business ventures to incentivise their staff (including a detailed discussion of Enterprise Management Schemes (EMI) and alternative participating 'Growth Shares' arrangements.

An extract from that 'Note' is as set out below:-
   

You'll forgive us if we 'don't want to give our prior-art away for free' - but - if you 'ask us nicely' we would be delighted to discuss the same with you.

If you are interested in learning further about the options available, please do not hesitate to contact:-

Dan.Johnson@EquitableLaw.com

+44 (0) 7788 537 187 = U.K. Cell. (& e-Tel.)

http://www.EquitableLaw.London

How To Approach A Solicitor With A Business Law Issue

Many entrepreneurial, growing businesses are unfamiliar with the process of approaching a professional advisor (so as to potentially help them).

I accordingly thought that I would write this (relatively detailed) note for their (and my) benefit - seeking to set out how I suggest they should go about approaching me (for maximum mutual benefit).

I believe that firstly, you need to be clear that you are inclined to seek to use the professional legal advice and assistance services of a highly experienced, fully qualified and legally trading 'English Solicitor' (such as myself), who is working through my own (London based) Solicitors practice (= a professionally authorised and regulated firm of British lawyers) which specialises in business matters.

There is going to be a potential cost to such action, but if you are ready to commit to some financial outlay - we would hope to provide input which 'pays back' multiple times over periods to come. 

If you do have legitimate commercial budgetary constraints - please be upfront about it, and allow us to understand underlying circumstances so that we can help you to set what should be reasonable legal spend.

Skilled solicitors are well versed in 'cutting cloth to suit a budget', so have that discussion (in early course) - and you may well be pleasantly surprised to discover your situation is a circumstance where with careful planning, a sensibly prepared scope of work may well meet your budget expectations.

Some of this firm's best and regular ongoing clients, were the subject of approaches to us at very early stages in their development (when budgets were 'tight'), but the efficient and cost-effective input we were able to provide - when those businesses' obtained 'maximum bang-per-buck', (in part) allowed them to 'blossom' into the significant enterprise they are today.

What I would (generally) NOT recommend is to 'buy a document online' or approach any of the numerous laymen - and (potentially) much, much worse - who seek to sell business advice and assistance (of a legal nature) over the internet - and whose abilities vary widely.

Please 'Be Warned' = Absolutely anyone can use the title 'Lawyer' (or 'Legal Advisor' etc.) with impunity in the U.K. (in relation to most areas of advising business on legal matters), whatever the relevant person's lack of qualifications, experience or expertise, absence of appropriate professional indemnity insurance cover, and/or potential history of grossly-negligent, non-competency etc.

If you are dealing with what I envisage are likely to be relatively material matters (as regards the ongoing business activities in which you are involved etc.) - I'd strongly suggest that you do use a Solicitor - So as to ensure that you receive the best possible legal advice and assistance in terms of dealing with your current legal requirements (and all future developments) - in an appropriately practical and effective manner (and most importantly - in a manner that you can rely upon as your business might develop further).

If you choose not to (or simply don't) take sensibly appropriate legal advice and assistance (now) in relation to the circumstances you wish to address - you potentially risk 'making a false economy', as I fear you may well spend time, effort (and financial resources) in a manner which risks being 'sub-optimal' (to put it mildly) - both in terms of the immediate effect of the initial advice and assistance that you might receive (and the relevant advice and assistance's ongoing legal effectiveness in the future - i.e. it's 'worth' in 'real world' practical use - when 'it comes to be tested').

Compared with (say) buying software - when you generally will become aware (fairly rapidly) if it is of poor quality and/or doesn't meet your needs - with legal work, such a position often only becomes apparent when you are involved in (say) a court action, the tax authorities are pursuing you or you have some other problem which adversely impacts upon your business and/or its worth.

Then try finding and/or obtaining redress from the person who 'messed up'!   

While I fully understand the financial pressures involved in business - I trust you would agree that it is always wise to be wary of buying (solely) on price – as (generally) 'in life', you ‘tend to get what you pay for’.

There is a reason why the word ‘cheap’ - is generally followed by the words ‘and nasty’ (as an English expression).

If you wanted to (initially) approach me, it would generally be extremely helpful for me - if you were able to provide me (ideally - before we might 'talk' in material detail) - with any (relevant further) information it would be sensible for me to be provided with - (I suggest) by providing some early details of the parties interested in the relevant matter, and sight of any appropriate copy correspondence and/or documentation already in existence (e.g. any and all relevant 'emails' and other 'papers' which are readily available) - so as to assist my understanding of the background, and (in particular) my understanding of all aspects and issues relevant to your matter.

Alternatively, a brief (if fuller to that which might already have been provided) synopsis of the background would generally be gratefully received.

I confirm that any and all  information and 'papers' provided will be kept fully in accordance with my regulator enforced, professional obligations of strict confidentiality

I then generally suggest that we potentially advance matters - by us arranging to have an initial, entirely no-obligation, exploratory conversation (by telephone or other 'real-time' communication method) - aiming to concisely discuss the underlying situation that you are seeking to address (in appropriate detail) - so as to seek to outline the possible approaches and options available for you - hopefully, formulating a sensible course of action to be taken.

Following the above-suggested approach, I should be able - by virtue of my approach of working efficiently, effectively and in a timely fashion - to limit professional fees (in due course) - to a highly cost-effective sum, reflecting appropriate time budgeted assistance at sensible charging rates in accordance with your reasonable fees budget.

The aim is always to produce legal advice and assistance of an extent and for a fee that would objectively be considered appropriate - on a basis of 'what the legal advice and assistance is worth' to the recipient.

I believe you will find the above stated suggested initial approach to preparing to address matters to be the best way of seeking to deal with such a situation as you have identified would potentially benefit from a professional advisor's input.

Much background information on me (i.e. my qualifications, experience and expertise etc.) is available via my firm's website (and related web-links therefrom) - so please feel free to read the same at your leisure

I hope that (having read this 'Blog' post) you will take the opportunity to make direct contact with me in the near future (following the approach I outline) - so that we can advance such matters as you are seeking to address.

Regards

Dan.Johnson@EquitableLaw.com

+44 (0) 7788 537 187 = U.K. Cellular (& e-Telephone)

www.EquitableLaw.London

A Lawyer Writes To One Of Their Service Providers . . .

Dear [Redacted],

By way of (belated) confirmation of our conversation of last month – I confirm that my firm’s cash-flow is expecting NOT to include any payments to [your employer] for period(s) after 1st November 2019 (by virtue of the termination of my firm’s subscription to the [relevant] service - by reference to / after the relevant date).

This is NOT in any way a reflection of your personal performance – but rather, the sad (for [your employer]) result of your employer’s (frankly) greed (as rather arrogantly communicated to me by automatic systems).

As a working private practice lawyer, I have to habitually ensure that I am not ‘priced out of my market’ - by virtue of a small claimed fee leading to my potentially losing many multiples of such sum over years to come.

The analogy for your employer is that an attempt to gain an additional GBP £x00 in one year – has led to their losing an established multiple-year client, who has historically been prepared to pay GBP £x,000 p.a.

I hope that it is a useful lesson for both of our businesses . . .

With best wishes for your working week

Regards

Dan.Johnson@EquitableLaw.com

+44 (0) 7788 537 187 = U.K. Cell. (& e-Tel.)

www.EquitableLaw.com

Social Media Posts = THINK!

Dear All,

I've been thinking (quite hard) recently about the concepts and practice of online communications.

Something quite strange happens to people (I acknowledge - occasionally including me), when 'one' is  presented with a keyboard as a means of certain types of remote communication - With 'one's social media etc. posts habitually being formed in a quite different manner and content (generally) from (say) business emails.

I'll leave the psychologists in my life to explain the detail to me - but it's a resultant effect of something akin to the difference between communications between two vehicle drivers (= often snarling rage) -v- two pedestrians (= frequently over-done politeness) - often in much the same set of circumstances (save for the disassociation arising from the physical 'separation' of the relevant individuals) .

It was brought to my attention recently that many schools now use a 'THINK' acronym to teach appropriate communications to young people (not least for the purposes of avoiding bullying behaviour).

There are a number of variations to the acronym, but I'm going to record (not least, for my own assistance - in terms of easy reference):-

Is it Truthful?

Is it Hateful?

Is it Immoral?

Is it Necessary?

Is it Knowledgeable?

Why am I talking about this now?

The answer is that over the last few years, the tone and language of online discourse has become increasingly nasty, and many of us (for example - whether supporting leave or remain in the Brexit debate ) have been targeted by trolls of the worst kind, who use language to harass and intimidate us.

Personally, I was mainly helped by realising that most of my worst abusers were 'bots' (or possibly that they were completely unable to inter-react with a reasoned argument for some other reason?)!

If you follow THINK, you can still comment upon your the appalling state of British (& American) public life (and the inadequate nature and abilities of too many of the individuals involved) - while hoping to do good / no evil.

I hope that the above helps you - It has me . . .

Regards

Dan.Johnson@EquitableLaw.com

+44 (0) 7788 537 187 = U.K. Cell. (& e-Tel.)

www.EquitableLaw.com
 

'IR 35' - Forthcoming Changes From April 2020 - Don't Get Caught Out!

The 'IR35 legislation', was introduced by HMRC to crack down on a particular form of perceived tax avoidance - whereby individuals would seek to avoid paying employee income tax and national insurance contributions by supplying their services through an intermediary (usually a limited company) and paying themselves in dividends.

'IR35' may have started life as a simple press release in 2000, but it has since become a notorious and difficult area of law for businesses to understand (and hence comply with).

What is colloquially known as ‘IR35’ - generally refers to various separate (and quite 'inelegantly' drafted) legislative provisions – designed to deal with perceived inequality in taxation treatments of certain remuneration related payments - which position (in turn) arises from H.M. Govt.’s own (arguably illogical) taxation approaches to how businesses and individuals are taxed.

The relevant legislation habitually changes over time (as what are seen as ‘tax loopholes’ are ‘closed’); and the U.K. taxation system is about to undergo quite a significant ‘tightening’ in that regard (as I envisage many of you are aware and which may affect your businesses  - operating in the private sector).

Specifically, in July 2019, H.M. Government published draft legislation implementing the Autumn 2018 Budget announcement that, with effect from April 2020, medium and large companies in the private sector that contract with personal service companies (PSCs) for the provision of workers' services will have to account for tax and national insurance through PAYE in the same way as the public sector has been required to do since April 2017. The legislation will be included in the 2020 Finance Bill - scheduled for the Autumn of 2019.

Accordingly, if you (and/or your businesses) are involved with PSCs - Now would be a good time to review your arrangements - If you wish to avoid HMRC scrutiny.

For further information, please do not hesitate to contact:-

Regards

Dan.Johnson@EquitableLaw.com

+44 (0) 7788 537 187 = U.K. Cell. (& e-Tel.)

www.EquitableLaw.com

First impressions matter because you don’t get a second chance to make one . . .

So often in life – First impressions matter because you don’t get a second chance to make one . . .

As I said to the (apparently genuine) financial institution who contacted me over recent days - whom I had initially identified as #financial #fraudsters / #cyber-#criminals!

Owner-Managed Businesses > 'Yet More' Quasi-Partnership Disputes

After yet another 'first approach' by entrepreneurs involved in a bitter dispute relating to a business they founded - I have reflected upon my experience of the numerous such circumstances I have legally advised and assisted with over the years. 

My experience in ‘quasi-partnership’ disputes relating to owner-managed companies at ventures in their development stage – Is that, if matters can be resolved by mutually satisfactory agreement, that is ultimately likely to be the best solution for all interested parties.

In a world in which civil legal aid has effectively completely ceased to exist – and in the absence of funding arrangements that adequately provide a means to fund skilled legal advice regarding such a situation – it regrettably can be quite expensive to be ‘fully lawyered up’.

That’s the reason I seek to provide a condensed and comprehensive legal consultation based upon the factual position – so that those who instruct me are ‘forearmed’ as to the situation they face and the options they have - allowing them to make better decisions towards resolving their difficult situation.

Ideally, upon founding a venture – a detailed set of Articles of Association and a relatively short Shareholders Agreement (which deals amongst other matters - with the situation of founders subsequently discovering they are unable to work together)  is highly advisable – but that in turn raises the following quandary:-

Those who go to the time, effort and expense of agreeing on such documentation – tend not to ‘fall-out’, because relevant aspect and issues are considered, discussed and agreed at an early stage.

Conversely – those who don’t are much more at risk of ‘acrimony’ (and the failure to expend a sensible legal budget early in the venture process are - in my view – making a false economy).

Never be afraid to contact me for an initial entirely 'no obligation'  conversation.

Regards

Dan.Johnson@EquitableLaw.com

+44 (0) 7788 537 187 = U.K. Cell. (& e-Tel.)

www.EquitableLaw.com

GDPR - A Different Way Of Thinking About Your 'Organisation's Personal Data . . .

Lawyers (especially Solicitors) may well face the (potentially legitimate) criticism of being (too) risk-averse.

Certainly, we like to ensure that those we have contact with - face no risk / potential exposure– If at all possible!

The advice (of others) with regard to the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is somewhat of a ‘bugbear’ of mine, by virtue of the complete charlatans who involved themselves (especially, at the time the legislation became effective) in claiming to be experts (and who misled an awful lot of people into misunderstanding the legislation (because they were close to clueless themselves):-

https://twitter.com/equitable_law/status/1114459398976495616?s=12

I have been known (when speaking on the subject - and - seeking to obtain my audience’s attention) to compare the spermatozoa within ‘ones’ testicles (or the eggs within 'ones' ovaries) - as being DNA which is akin to ‘personal data’.

The first mistake is to think of your "organisation's" personal data as 'yours' (akin to the contents of your sexual reproductive organs i.e. your sperm or eggs).

However, it's not when you think about it - it's almost exclusively that of your forbears/ancestors (save for such genetic mutation as might have occurred in you!)

That established - ‘One’ should always seek to obtain ‘express consent’ to ‘processing that data’ – and in this ‘#metoo’ world, the cautious approach is not to rely upon ‘implied consent’ to 'processing that data' - otherwise there is a danger ‘one’ will face issues such as those faced by Harvey Weinstein / Bill Cosby . . .

I could carry on and reflect that when you allow the personal data that you hold - to be 'processed by a third party' (however noble your intentions), you can’t (always) get the personal data back and have to 'live with the consequences' = My much loved (and in truth, planned!) son, Aleksandr (‘Aleks’) Johnson, will be twelve (12) in August 2019!

For more 'practical' GDPR legal advice and assistance, please feel free to contact:-

Mr. Dan.Johnson@EquitableLaw.com - Principal & Business Law Solicitor

+44 (0) 7788 537 187 = U.K. Cellular / e-Telephone

www.EquitableLaw.com

Equitable Law Assists With Sale Of Insurance Business

Equitable Law recently assisted with the sale of insurance business 'It's So Easy Travel Insurance' ("ISETI") to Freedom Insurance Services ("Freedom Insurance").

https://www.itssoeasytravelinsurance.com specialises in providing bespoke cover for those with particular travel insurance needs - such as those with pre-existing medical conditions.

The transaction (for amounts of undisclosed cash consideration) completed immediately after the U.K.'s 2019 'May Day' Bank Holiday (the transaction having been conditional upon the buyer receiving approval for ISETI's change of controller from the U.K.'s Financial Conduct Authority).

The seller, Mr. Kevin Waite commented:-

"I want to thank Mr. Dan Johnson, the Principal of Equitable Law for his clear and pragmatic advice throughout this transaction, which was surprisingly complex - and unfamiliar to me in my business experience.

Dan's constructive input allowed me to undertake much of the necessary work myself - without 'over-lawyering' which made matters efficient and cost-effective.

I am delighted that exchange and completion has been smoothly achieved, and I look forward to my forthcoming retirement - although for the moment, I continue as a director of ISETI - assisting with a smooth change of ownership to Freedom Insurance."

Freedom Insurance were advised by LockDutton Corporate Finance of Guildford - www.ldcf.co.uk

To discuss any transactional/corporate work relating to the insurance sector - within which Dan Johnson (and Equitable Law) have considerable experience, please do not hesitate to contact:-

Dan.Johnson@EquitableLaw.com - Principal & Business Law Solicitor

+44 (0) 7788 537 187 = U.K. Cellular / e-Telephone

www.EquitableLaw.com     

'My (Not-Necessarily) Learned Friend, Mr. Google QC' . . . (A Relative Of 'Doctor Google')

Dear All,

I wanted to observe (and comment upon) a position that I'm seeing more and more frequently - In the hope that you don't 'fall victim' to the same.

Very broadly (and meaning no disrespect), I suggest it is important that all those who approach a Solicitor to help them with legal advice and assistance don’t approach matters akin to what (I understand) is similarly experienced within, and (colloquially) known by the medical profession - as being ‘a patient who has already had a consultation with Doctor Google’!

Within the medical profession, this phrase refers to a patient who initially presents themselves before their Doctor - asking (say) for a prescription for their (self-diagnosed - via a web-search) full-blown (say) acquired immuno-deficiency syndrome (AIDS) - when what is actually required is some cough mixture etc. for their sore, slightly infected throat (!)

I'm not going to lie - I've done it with my GP - to some extent (until I realised how much of a danger it made of me looking ridiculous)!

The internet can be a valuable resource, but I don't need to tell you that it could do with a serious 'edit' to remove out of date, incorrect and plain false information (e.g. 'anti-vaxers' anyone?).

If you approach obtaining legal advice and assistance in a manner (which I see often in selling legal services) where a client has formed an opinion of what they need/want to do – based upon incomplete or misleading information that they have received from reading the internet – which if they took appropriate advice – could likely be achieved better and simpler (and quite often more cost-effectively).

Clients are regularly presenting themselves before me asking me (say) to propose a legal fee for their self-designed (and consequently - unworkable) Enterprise Management Incentive (EMI) Scheme, when ideally they should be having an early discussion about how they want to incentivise their staff (ideally with some sort of tax-advantaged, share-based incentive arrangement . . . possibly an EMI Scheme).

It’s very important that all interested parties should focus upon ensuring that the appropriate documentation is in place - at the appropriate time - to meet the stage of development of the relevant  business (and its budget) while satisfying your business aims (which may not be what you are initially asking a Solicitor for help with).

Beware – That if you seek to obtain documentation that you specify in detail (after 'doing some web-research') at the cheapest possible price – there is a huge risk you will actually find someone to provide it for you (but the likelihood might well be that they won’t know what they are doing in so providing you with what you have asked for; and your business may well suffer in the future, as a result!

In my profession, I am often approached by those who have read some information on line (often about another jurisdiction and its tax code) - and they want to model what they have read, even though commercially, legally and taxation-wise etc. it is inappropriate for their circumstances in this jurisdiction.

Law (unlike medicine) is a creation of man and while a sore throat might be treated much the same in the U.S. as it is in the U.K., the same does not apply to much of business inter-reacting with local laws (especially taxation)

The classic example is the early stage business who want ‘a shareholders agreement incorporating a vesting schedule for shares in the business’ (because they have read an internet article authored by a non-legally qualified etc. venture capitalist in Silicon Valley, California) - when what they are likely to need under English law is an ‘appropriate new set of articles incorporating un-vesting provisions’.

The aims and principles are much the same - but the documentation and the detail of effecting the commercial aims is quite different.

Don't be the person who initially contacts me and I then hear nothing further - because ‘I haven’t proposed a budgeted ('low') price and instead I'm emphasising that other alternative ways to achieve what they were asking for are available’; and habitually, I 'sheepishly' next hear from them a few years later – when they have run into huge commercial, legal and taxation problems caused by the low cost (usually non-authorised) but certainly inexpert and inexperienced legal provider who gave them exactly what they wanted without knowing whether or not it was appropriate (so as to make a ‘fast buck’ at the time and not care about the future).

If you are considering a significant legal step in relation to your business, please talk to me early as I may (well) have availability and inclination to initially consider the same and endeavour to help you with materials and guidance you can rely upon as being up-to-date, legally accurate and appropriate.

Please take comfort that any initial/early 'contact(s)' with me / my firm - are on an entirely ‘no obligation’ basis = It's good to talk!

I trust that we will have an opportunity for further contact - Hopefully, In the near future = 'You know where to find me' (and 'let's keep the lines of communication open').

Regards,

Dan.Johnson@EquitableLaw.com

+44 (0) 7788 537 187 = U.K. Cell. / e-Tel.

www.EquitableLaw.com

Enterprise Management Incentive (EMI) Schemes . . .

Please, please don't design them yourselves - Without an understanding of the legislation (and particularly the tax effects) - otherwise you potentially risk designing something that will land the employees you wish to benefit - with a tax bill (that is unlikely to 'motivate' them)!

Please talk to 'me' early (and often) = I'd be delighted to provide you with a (good) = readable, legally accurate, concise (while comprehensive) ‘Note’ on the subject of ‘EMI Share Option Plans: Overview’ (and a host of related 'materials') = Let me know if you believe you might potentially benefit / like sight of the same!

Kind regards

Dan.Johnson@EquitableLaw.com

+44 (0) 7788 537 187 = U.K. Cell. / e-Tel.

www.EquitableLaw.com    

WTO . . . 'Heck NO'!

I don't claim that this post is original - It's largely copied and then verified by me as the publishing English Solicitor.

There is an awful lot of rubbish printed and spoken about the World Trade Organisation (usually by people with ulterior motives to lie / occasionally by gullible fools who siimply belive anything they are told).

Here's some useful WTO points to read and consider.:

1/ If the UK were to end up solely on WTO rules, then we would need a hard border in Ireland. That risks peace, stability, and the Union. Plus we don't have any time to build the infrastructure required. Like, nowhere NEAR enough time. And there aren't any "alternative arrangements", I promise. They don't exist. There isn't a single border in the world that has any. And that means a hard border.

2/ If we rely on WTO rules for trade, then we need to apply tariffs to imports. And expect that other countries will apply tariffs to our exports. That makes things more expensive for UK citizens to buy, and makes UK based businesses less able to compete. Not really sure how this is a win.

3/ If we decide we're not going to apply tariffs to imports at all, then we lose all leverage for negotiating future trade deals. What on earth would we offer them? We've already given them free access to our market.

4/ If we decide we're not going to apply tariffs to imports at all, then we destroy our own producers - why would you carry on trying to run a farm produce business when the market is flooded with much cheaper products from abroad?

5/ If we decide to only reduce tariffs on products from the EU, then the Most Favoured Nation clause (WTO rules) kicks in - this says that you can't offer more favourable terms to one bloc, and not everyone else. So - no tariffs from the EU, means no tariffs from anyone. See points 3 and 4.

6/ If you were looking forward to getting your bendy bananas back, then hard luck; this rule didn't come from the EU (no matter what Boris told you), it came from the WTO - specifically, the Codex Alimentarius. So, no change there. Except now bananas are extortionately expensive, because, well, tariffs.

7/ If you're relying on the idea that there's an obscure WTO rule that says we can just carry on trading with the EU on the same terms we have now for 10 years, then hard luck again - this isn't correct. The "rule" is Article XXIV of the GATT, and is specifically an allowance for deviating from the MFN (see 5) because you and another bloc are working towards implementing your bilateral trade deal. It requires an end point - a fully thrashed out trade agreement. It is specifically NOT a clause that comes into play when you decide to drop out of an existing trading arrangement.

8/ If one of the benefits of "going WTO" is that we can make our own rules, then I can understand that. We could decide, unilaterally, that it's too expensive for us to produce electronics with an earthing wire, so we're not going to insist on that anymore. Fine. But then we can't sell our products to our closest trading neighbours. We want to sell stuff to the EU, we need to follow their rules. Except now we don't get a say in what they are.

9/ Having a "world trade deal" sounds quite attractive - quite romantic. The idea of Britain going out on her own, bravely forging links with faraway lands - it's quite appealing.  Except trade doesn't work like that.  There's a gravity towards your closest neighbours - proximity is important. I'm more likely to sell something to France than I am to Australia - I can get it there quicker, for example, and for a much lower cost. There is no nation on earth - none - that have prioritised trading with distant countries instead of those geographically closest. We're about to be the first - which will involve a pretty brutal lesson in the realities of logistics.

10/ If we go WTO, then we need to check goods coming into our internal market - including those from the EU. We don't have the infrastructure to do this. Nor do we have the staff. Nor the time. Plus - and this is deeply ironic - once we leave the EU, the pool of people from which we can recruit to do this essential work becomes much, much smaller.  Do we have enough vets to perform the necessary checks on livestock coming into the country, for example? No. Where do we normally recruit them from? The EU. Ah, Heck!

11/ A No Deal exit was never on the cards during the campaign. It is simply all that is left, once logic and reality strip away all the lies that we were told about Brexit. No, German car manufacturers haven't been knocking on Merkel's door demanding a trade deal with the UK. No, the EU doesn't need us more than we need them. No, we don't hold all the cards. None of that was true. It was never going to be true. But rather than facing up to reality, the rhetoric has just become more and more extreme. If you're dealt a bad hand in a game of poker - if the river turns against you - you don't HAVE to go all in. There are other options. You don't need to claim that was what you intended to do all along.

All of this - all of the above. That's what Donald Tusk was talking about. People who either ignored the above, or didn't even bother to find out about it - but sold us Brexit anyway. The people who - even now - print banners that say "LET'S GO WTO!" as if it's the easiest thing in the world, and without consequence.

Don't fall for 'their' lies all over again!

Professional Insurance Time . . .

It's this firm's time of year for renewal of our multi-million pound (GBP £) professional indemnity insurance cover - as professionally required to 'ensure' that a Solicitors' clients are covered from receiving 'sub-optimal' legal advice and assistance.

The brokers' sales teams swing into action, and (frankly) to stop them constantly telephoning me - We occasionally complete one of their 'short form' proposals as to seeking insurance cover - Which this year has elicited the following response:-     

'Hi [Redacted],

Thank you very much for sending through your proposal form which I have just finished reviewing.

Unfortunately, due to the complete lack of any claims history against you - both personally (across your entire career), and at a firm-wide level (since you founded your business) - you are considered an extremely good risk, and it is unlikely that we will be able to offer any quotation that will be competitive with that offered by your existing brokers. Sadly, I am not going to be able to help you at this time.

If for any reason you experience an event likely to give rise to a significant increase in premium upon renewal, then please let me know as I would be more than happy to help.

As a business, we are looking for law firms (including those trading unregulated) who regularly need to involve their insurers in defending claims under their professional indemnity insurance relating to negligent professional advice - So do please feel free to recommend our services (and keep our details on file) for any firms you may come across who would seemingly meet our criteria. 

Apologies.

Kind regards,

[Redacted]'

Oh, the stories we could tell / details we could pass across if confidentiality allowed!

Dan.Johnson@EquitableLaw.com

+44 (0) 7788 537 187 = U.K. Cell., / e-Tel.

Quoting for Legal Work . . .

Frequently a business professional - in my case, an English Solicitor - will be approached by a business and/or its owner(s) that is considering undertaking a significant transaction (for example, taking external investment or selling the business), and the question is asked - "How much will it cost for you to assist me?"

I'll ignore (for the moment) the sub-text of the question which is (broadly) 'How low will you go?'!

The issue with seeking to respond to an enquiry of such a nature - is that it generally hugely helps me / the relevant business professional to know a little more about the envisaged underlying transaction (which can even be : Who are you?  Please would you guide me to some publicly available information with regard to your venture!) - Before I can meaningfully provide a properly formulated proposal on fees.

A small factual difference in background information can significantly change an advisor's understanding of what is required in relation to a broadly outlined request for assistance;  and can make a huge difference in what a competent legal advisor suggests should be the work involved (and hence the budgeted fee proposal).

Ironically, it is the good legal advisors who see significant issues early - that lose out to 'the low ballers' who don't!

In particular, it is generally useful to know the 'quantum' (or size) of the envisaged transaction – since legal fees should (in one context) be seen as akin to 'buying an insurance policy' = seeking to 'ensure' that a transaction proceeds as envisaged and without ‘risk’ = i.e. the outcome is of a manner you are comfortable with, and (heaven forbid) that you don’t (personally) have to face subsequent legal claims from the other interested parties.

The position I often find myself in - is a little like being asked to quote for 'insuring a house', and not knowing (often - to any degree) whether I am being asked to 'insure' Buckingham Palace or a much more modest dwelling (!)

Legal fees have as their broad 'underpinning' the professional time budgeted to be incurred in performing the service industry role involved.  In that regard, Solicitors are little different to most other service industries, where you are paying for the time of those providing the service.  Thus there is one price for a morning's 'quick domestic clean', and another (higher) price for a full day's 'spring clean'.

That said, it is a truism that you can undertake much the same amount of time (and effort), and hence have similar professional fees - in (say) undertaking the 'domestic property legal conveyancing' of each of the properties mentioned above (Buckingham Palace -v- more modest dwelling) - but clients should surely see that you wouldn't expect to pay the same fees for buying Buckingham Palace, as you would for buying the much more modest dwelling!

If you want to think of the principle in an alternative context - of a 'service provider' seeking to provide an economical, efficient, high-quality service (= let's use the example of a 'property decorator'), you will appreciate that a quote for 'decorating a house' does depend upon the nature of the house.  Someone quoting to paint Buckingham Palace would take into account the significantly larger nature of the job, and the need to use better quality materials - as opposed to potentially 'touching up' with 'thinned paint to allow a speedier job' on the much more modest dwelling.

Another analogy, which my more vehicle-centric clients habitually understand is that when you ask for a quote for a car service - the price will differ depending upon whether the vehicle is a new, valuable, prestige make (undergoing a warranty cover service), or an elderly vehicle that it's only really economic to ensure it is road legal.   

In reality, when preparing for a significant business transaction - I’d suggest it sensible for clients to reserve an appropriate proportion of the envisaged transaction proceeds to ensure that the relevant interested parties obtain appropriately sensible, pragmatic and practical legal advice protecting their position(s) – but obviously, ‘we all need to cut our cloth to suit the relevant resources’ (= both ‘customer’ and ‘tailor’ (/Solicitor))!

I would always suggest in such circumstances - arranging to have an initial 'no-obligation' exploratory consultation (remotely / by telephony) with an experienced and expert Solicitor - aiming to concisely discuss (in sufficient detail) the underlying situation and circumstances which should be  sought to be addressed - and - to outline the approaches/options available for you - hopefully formulating an appropriate course of action for you to take.

If you wished to proceed upon that basis - it would be extremely helpful for me - if you were able to provide me (before we might 'talk' - and - in accordance with my professional / regulator enforced obligations of strict confidentiality) with such further background information as might be appropriate for me to know (e.g. the identity of the (other) interested parties) and/or sight of any relevant copy documentation (e.g. any relevant 'papers') so as to assist my initial review.

I should be able to limit my firm's fees - to very reasonable budgeted sum(s) (as would objectively be considered appropriate - on grounds of 'what the legal advice and assistance is worth' - i.e. also known (by lawyers) by the Latin phrase a 'Quantum Meruit' basis - taking account of the underlying factual circumstances) - while working quickly and efficiently so as to ensure maximum cost-effectiveness.

Clients habitually find this approach highly valuable - and - the best way of preparing to address the situation you will seemingly be seeking to deal with.

Don't buy solely on price - It's not what successful businesses do (but that requires a further blog!)
There is a reason why the phrase 'Cheap' is generally followed by the phrase 'and Nasty' in the English vernacular!

If the above applies to you - I hope that you will make direct contact with me in the near future - so that we can advance matters.

Should you wish to do so – Please feel free to arrange to schedule any proposed conversation with me at a date and / or time (to suit you) - checking / using my public diary availability > scheduling tool – available via = https://calendly.com/danielrobertjohnson

I look forward to (hopefully) ‘speaking’ in the near future.   

With best regards

Mr. Dan Johnson  - Principal and Business Law Solicitor

EquitableLaw.com  –  Solicitors For Business

+44 (0) 7788 537 187 = U.K. Cellular / e-Telephone

+44 (0) 20 8780 3319 = London Landline > e-Voicemail