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