The threat of "Tesco law".

n

The threat of Alternative Business Structures means that Law firms are under threat from large, non legal, corporations such as Tesco’s who will be offering legal services for a fraction of the price. What is ABS you may ask? The legal services act 2011 means the ownership of legal services providers   will now be open to anyone deemed competent or 'proper', for example a supermarket or building society – hence the sobriquet "Tesco law". These providers will be subject to the same requirements and regulations as solicitors. So soon, tescos will be able to offer cheap divorces or execute an uncontested will or convey property- basically they will be able to perform legal tasks that are currently the monopoly of solicitors. Although the quality of service will be questionable to say the least, we live in a society where the consumer is increasingly cost conscious and price driven, quality is often compromised for the sake of “a good deal”.  This is a serious threat to modern lawyers. 

Tesco law, where quality is questionable.

There has been a scramble to prevent any damage before tescos and co are unleashed on the legal world. QualitySolicitors have launched a national high street branch network in a bid to become the first ‘household name’ legal brand. In the same way that specsavers became a nationally recognised brand, QS are rebranding many high street firms to become an umbrella corporation, with uniforms, logos and quirky animated characters all in an attempt to become the big brand name for legal services. QualitySolicitors chief executive Craig Holt said: ‘The threat posed by “Tesco law”  is so grave because of the lack of recognised, customer service-focused brand names in the legal market. Visibility on the high street, along with a high-profile marketing campaign including on primetime television, will transform QualitySolicitors into the first household name legal brand... we aim to dominate the legal market before the “Tesco law” entrants can even get off the ground'. Branches have extended opening hours including weekends and they are even opening branches in shopping centers.  WHSmiths have leapt onto the bandwagon and now have legal access points in their stores (well I guess no one buys half the stuff there anymore, Kids download music, dvds and books these days! Smart move smiths) Although god knows why Amanda Holden was chosen to announce it's opening.. 

Is this the answer? to me QS is not the solution to the tescos threat. Whilst I understand the logic and think its a great idea, to me something doing quite sit right. Re-branding well established law firms strips a firm of its soul, history and subsequently its cliental, People choose solicitors for their reputation through the community, we appreciate firms that have history because it shows how successful they are. To me, QS is almost tacky advertising! We like our solicitors to have that personal touch and to be recognisable, high streets are not for brand names. Perhaps this would work for large city firms where the personal touch isn't so important. But for a high street it simply wouldn't work. I know where I live, if a branded shop opens in the high street there's an outcry of "greedy corporations ruining our high street!" - although we didn't complain so much when costa coffee opened.  

A legal face lift?

Has the minds behind QS considered the biggest issue with nationwide brands? It only takes for one small office to ruin the whole brands reputation? what happens if these so called "quality" firms aren't so quality after all? I know great firms that are of genuine quality whom have rejected the offer to become part of the brand because they (rightly) felt they have an established reputation within the community and do not fear the threat of ABS enough to forsake this. Which means that those who do join the branding are most likely those that had something to fear, second rate firms without the reputation to survive the tescos monster. Those that felt they needed soulless branding to give them the edge in the new market. 

So should lawyers be threatened by tescos and co? Anyone intelligent would know you have to pay for quality, when it costs about 2k for a divorce by a professional but tescos are offering one for £300 alarm bells would immediately start ringing. Clients who cannot afford experienced legal advice or don’t understand the importance of professional service will jump the chance of using the well known and cheaper brands. However but it is likely that they will subcontract the work to 'law farms' – probably not based in the UK, where the staff are not expensive, and thus not necessarily too experienced.  However, does this counter balance the dropping of legal aid? ABS will make divorce and wills available to those who cannot afford legal services and would usually be the recipient of legal aid.

nHow can we ensure clients don't defect to Tescos? The modern lawyer will have to specialise in niche markets, become an expert in more complex and specific fields. It’s likely non legal businesses will dominate fields such as undefended divorces, simple wills and conveyancing, thus the lawyers should practice more complex areas of law, such as disputed wills, welfare law, human rights- thus the modern lawyer will need to be of the highly knowledgeable, dedicated and passionate about the law.

nFurthermore, the one thing Tesco's and other big corporations will not be able to offer is personal service, Lawyers have, historically, a reputation for being stuffy, old fashioned and out of touch with society but we can pride ourselves on having a good client/solicitor service. Solicitors see cases through from begining to end, this is unlikely to be the case at tescos. If you phone your solicitor they can tell you exactly how far your case has gone, how soon you can expect the decree nisi to be declared etc. Tesco's law farms will not be able to provide this, everything will be stored on computers or in large files, there will be various people handling all the different cases and it will be near on impossible to track your case specifically. In other words, there is no personal touch, no reassuring guidance or human service. This will be the biggest downfall of ABS. n

 

As a law student seeking a training contract, I know the last thing I want it to be working for tescos after 4 years slogging it at law school. Even if it is as a lawyer. The approval of ABS by the law society has left me feeling a little let down. We all know the law society is a fan of free market but this has really tightened the nail in a prospective trainees coffin. With even less demand for trained solicitors what hope in hell do we have securing that ever elusive training contract? I have found a distinct lack of criticism regarding QS too, the law gazette seems to be giving it free advertising by praising it weekly, however when I read the comments from REAL solicitors, I see i'm not alone in my aversion- and i'ts not just because they  don't offer training contracts! One outrages solicitor exclaimed "Is this what my education and training has come to? If I am to be a shop keeper then I would rather sell something that displays better, like cakes" this is certainly a sentiment I share, and not just because I love cake.  But I agree that QS will ruin the reputation of the profession and one can only imagine  the horror of daily mail headlines that will ensue...

Are law students over worked or just plain neurotic?

It's been four months since those ghastly examinations and we've had a beautifully long summer to recover from the stress. Many students, law students in particular, strain under the monumental amount of pressure exams cause. I've known relationships to break up because of it, friendships fall apart and mental breakdowns too. I personally end up very ill around exam times, firstly my wrist can't cope with the strenuous and avid essay writing I put it through, I end up with blisters on my fingers, a swollen wrist and a locked arm. Also I become physically exhausted but too scared to sleep more than the recommended seven hours in case I am wasting valuable revision time. I get headaches and nausea from the consistent reading and note taking, only to be made worse by the inevitable crying fit i'll have induced by blind neurotic paranoia that "i'm going to fail, my life is over." And even after the exams are over we all seem to be in a post traumatic daze, it's as if there's an empty gap in our lives, to be precise a 17 hour gap. What do we do with ourselves now exams are over? Of course we drink, and part of the "post traumatic daze" is probably just a hangover but I do find myself rather confused and lost after the exams. 

I'm not suggesting  those who take other subjects don't feel the stress but obviously I'm so self absorbed in my own stress around these times I only notice how other law students are coping. But I do feel law students are under a hideous amount of pressure to do well in exams. We're under pressure from ourselves, there's pressure from your parents, who've proudly told all their friends, the other mum's in yoga class and the dad's on the golf course that their precious child is a lawyer and now you have to live up to this high expectation. There's also the pressure to beat cocky students who tell you to only expect low grades as you "spend far too much time partying and not in the library like me" just to prove to them that playing World of Warcraft in the Library doesn't make you a legal eagle. There's also the dreaded moment when you've decided you've done enough revision today, log onto facebook or twitter and see everyone else proclaiming how much more revision they've done, "I've done three all nighters" or "I've written 15 pages of notes on easements, your spider diagram is so concise", pressuring us to keep up with them. There's also the fact we're applying for training contracts and these companies expect the highest marks, passing is not enough, we know that we're competing against oxbridge students who's parents have already put in a good word for them at the firm. Those who aren't aiming for a particular career have the luxury of doing "the best that they can", there's no pressure to get a particular mark, a 2:2 in Literature, Maths or any subject really is highly respectable, sure a 2:1 would be better, but at least a 2:2 wouldn't mean the end of their career. So there's slightly less pressure there, for us though it's a case of Do excellent or you've basically wasted three years, vast amounts of money and lost all sanity. 

The sort of people who obnoxiously claim a 3rd in law is better than a first in any other subject are kidding themselves. I'll be the first to admit I am quite snooty about "proper degrees" but I include degrees other than law in my list of what I deem to be a respectable degree, such as literature, maths, medicine (obviously) etc. but yes, there are certain degrees that I do turn my nose at and deem worthless which I dare not mention publicly. However, I could never believe a 3rd in law is better than a 1st in Literature. A first in Literature would open so many doors for you whereas a third in law closes all desirable ones. 

Basically, what I'm trying to say is, we as law students are under immense pressure to excel, for we have aimed so high and are so determined to achieve that elusive training contract, we cannot allow ourselves to only achieve good marks, we need exceptional ones, else all the hard work is for nothing. This is why we crack during exams & go insane, ironically this actually affects exam performance negatively. It's a catch 22. 

I know four months seems excessive for a summer holiday, most degrees could easily be completed in 2 years if we had a normal 6 week holiday like we did back in compulsive education. Which would save much money, especially considering the extortionate prices students will have to pay as of next year. But I feel I needed the 4 months to recover from the trauma. I also had a chance to do a months work experience and visit the legal practice centre in which I hope to go to next year, this reignited my passion for law and reminded me why I was taking the degree in the first place. 

So in answer to my question, I don't believe we are over worked more than other students, sometimes we have a heavier timetable whereas other degrees have more coursework and this balances it out. We have set our own standards and expectations too high that we tend to panic and develop neurotic tendencies and whats worse, if we fail to meet those expectations once those results have come out, we make every excuse under the sun. I've seen it all from people claiming it's a harsh marker, to people telling their family that "no one gets above a 2:2 in law" to the worst of all, "well a 3rd in law is better than a high class degree in any other subject so it doesn't matter". We need to relax more as students, revise hard of course, but we need to be realistic about what we are capable of achieving and the amount of pressure our bodies can cope with. we will exceed far better if we could learn to revise effectively rather than trying to out do each other. 

Legal Eagle: Is Nutella false advertising? ...

...Or are Americans just idiots?

Nutella is my guilty pleasure, I don't enjoy eating chocolate bars or ice cream, I'm normally a savoury cheese board kind of girl or a citrus tangy cheese cake for after dinner. However, I have been known to eat Nutella straight from the jar on a spoon. Just one spoon, perhaps two, when I'm needing a sugar hit. I'm no fool, I'm fully aware it's about 100 calories a table spoon. After all, it is a chocolate spread, spread implies "fat" like butter or margarine, and everyone knows chocolate is unhealthy, only a complete moron would genuinely believe consumption of nutella can be part of a healthy diet. 

Only one mother did. An American mother of course, this is the sort of story that would only happen in the jurisdiction of the US of A. The Californian "Mom" (or Mum as we correctly say in this country) Athena Hohenberg is genuinely suing Nutella for misleading advertising that led her to believe Nutella was a healthy breakfast option for her daughter. 

Nutella advertises its product as being enriched in Hazelnuts and wholegrain. Which is true, it's just also full of saturated fats and sugars. The crazy mother has kindly asked that any monetary judgment be divided among "all persons who purchased on or after January 2000 one or more Nutella products in the United States for their own or household use." Assuming this case isn't laughed out of court... but then again, this is America we're talking about. 

We have to be serious, what are the boundaries between free speech and false advertising? The most prominent case illustrating this question is Nike v Kasky. Any law or business student that has studied Corporate Governance will be familiar with this case. Acting on behalf of the public, Kasky filed a lawsuit in California regarding Nike newspaper advertisements. The plaintiff brought this action seeking monetary and injunctive relief in the hope to curb false advertising and unfair competition. Plaintiff alleged that defendant corporation (Nike)  made false statements of fact about its labour practices and its working conditions in it's factories,  this was to induce consumers to continue buying products after public complaints about Nike's corporate responsibility. Kasky claimed that these representations by Nike constituted false advertising. Nike responded that the representations were merely an expression of opinion; they were not intended to be an advertisement and therefore, were entitled to First Amendment protection (protection of free speech). Although the local court agreed with Nike's lawyers, the California Supreme Court overturned this ruling, claiming that the corporation's communications were commercial speech and therefore subject to false advertising laws. Although there was going to be a review of the case, the parties settled out of court before any accuracy of Nike's statements was found or proven, subsequently leaving the California Supreme Court's denial of Nike's immunity claim as precedent. This basically illustrates the flummoxing and delicate line between a right to free speech, and false advertisement.

The point I’m trying to make here, is that if we are to claim Nutella is falsely advertising, then surely all advertisements must be reviewed? Are Mcdonald’s guilty of false advertisement? Do we really believe that their “whole chicken breast burgers” are good for our children? Or that just because a cheese string contains a “whole glass of milk” it is a super healthy snack for our children? It is after all cheese. Should we sue Cravendale for claiming milk is a good source of calcium but neglecting to mention in the advert the calorific content of it’s full fat milk? Surely this contradicts the point of advertising, the purpose of which is to highlight to good points to consumers? Not to manifest the negatives along side. So should we sue every company that has ever advertised for “stretching the truth” a little, or do companies have the right to assume their consumers have a little common sense? You as an adult consumer have the responsibility to use your own brain when shopping.

To conclude, Athena has no leg to stand on. Yes Nutella advertises itself as rich in calcium and whole grain, because it is. The company has no obligation to broadcast every nutritional fact on it’s commercials. KFC don’t should about their calorific content on the adverts yet they do rave about it being “fresh, on the bone, chicken.” What the company IS obliged to do, is print all nutritional information on its label, which is does. If you were to turn the jar over and read the label, you’d clearly see the calorie, sugar and saturated fat content. Then it’s up to you to make an informed decision regarding it’s purchase. I say the plaintiff has no leg to stand on, but we have to remember this case is being tried in America, stranger things have happened over seas. Only in America would someone claim to be “shocked” at the high fat and sugar content of a chocolate spread. Athena, I’m sorry, but Nutella isn’t the reason your daughter is fat, it’s because you are too lazy to read the label and have no common sense.  

TV overdose: Franklin & Bash

I guess in a nutshell this is lawyers do scrubs. However, it's less slapstick than our favourite hospital drama. This doesn't mean it's not a thoroughly enjoyable show. It's not received spectacular accolades and  it's a rather slow burner, you don't instantly warm to the characters and it doesn't really make sense how two lawyers who rarely win cases, suddenly join a big firm and start winning every single one. But it's been renewed for another series and I genuinely believe it can only get better. I've only watched the first four or five episodes so far, but with each one I've started to warm to the characters and been able to enjoy the show a whole lot more, and this will undoubtedly grow as the show progresses.

Franklin & Bash. Bash is the sexier one.

I was determined to enjoy this show, so I'm glad I persisted. As a law student I seem to have developed Stockholm syndrome and I've learnt to love my oppressor, the oppressor being the law and anything to do with it. I love drama's and books about the study and practice of law. I usually hate on most characters though for being successful, perhaps once I'm actually qualified this ferocious and incessant detest for young, pretty blonde lawyers with top class degrees and a jag will fade. But the fact it was two goofy male lawyer, one being rather dishy, I felt the show had potential to tame the green monster within. So I went onto 4OD and watched the pilot whilst working out on my cross trainer- watching tv helps ease the pain of exercise and makes time go faster. 

I'll give you a run down on who's who.

Jared Franklin, the bolshy, overly confident lawyer, who's main game is to party hard and take on the occasional case. His dad is a highly successful trial lawyer but Jared refuses to work for him. His mannerisms in court are rather unconventional, for example downing beer or encouraging Bash to make out with the client in front of the jury- but they inevitably work.  

Peter Bash, Franklin's best friend and legal partner. He is more mature than Franklin but also tastier. He's much more appreciative of his place in such a large firm and tries a little harder to not get fired, unlike Franklin. He does however still fawn over his ex, who is clearly a douche. 

Stanton Infeld, the eccentric, yet easy-going senior partner of a major law firm. He's very into Chinese & Japanese culture. He see's a spark in Franklin and Bash that more serious staff do not. He appreciated their unconventional techniques and is impressed by them and also by the way they care more about justice than making money. I guess his firm has become so established as a corporation it's loss the fundamental and initial purpose of the firm.

Damien Karp, Stanton's nephew and also a lawyer there. He's rather jealous of Franklin and Bash' rappour with his uncle and cannot quite fathom why Stanton hires them. He is a traditional lawyer and prefers the mature approach to the practice. However he's not always completely clean, he's willing to pay and bride witness' and basically screw people over. However there are times when you think he would warm the F&B eventually. He's probably a lonely sod with no friends. He dreams of being a judge one day but this is unlikely since a video of him masterbating went viral. 

There is also Carmen Phillips, an ex-convict who works for Franklin and Bash and Pindar Singh, an agoraphobic nerd also working for F&B. 

Basically Franklin and Bash party hard and work, relatively hard. They have a strong sense of justice rather than corruption- which is a refreshing change from how lawyers are usually presented in the media. Their wacky and unconventional methods perhaps should be more elaborated as the show goes on as it has such potential to be an outstanding comedy. I'll continue to watch and hope that one day, I too have a hot tub on my decking with fairy lights and parties every night. 

Work Placement Review

It's been a while, I'm very sorry about this but I've been on a work placement We live in a demoralizing Catch 22 society where you cannot get a job without work experience, but finding work experience is practically impossible. It's a case of who you know not what you know, so those of us who do not have family members that are lawyers are unlikely to ever find work experience and subsequently we will therefore never become lawyers. Meaning those already from privileged families are protected whilst the rest of us struggle to get noticed. However that is quite enough of my left wing harangue.

I had a stroke of luck however, after applying to well over 50 firms for a work placement- all rejected and most without the courtesy to inform me so- My boyfriend's dad who is manager of an auction house had managed to get me a month's work at a solicitors in Chester as one of his regulars is a partner. I love Chester, it's historical yet vibrant, which is why i'm applying to do my Legal Practice Course there. It also meant I got to spend a month living it up in Wrexham with my boyfriend, this was a blessing as we live far apart and summer holidays normally drag laboriously.

I came to the realization that I do not want to be an Ambulance Chaser, personal injury law is incredibly jejune and dreary. It occurred to me that I wouldn't get to be Ted from scrubs, I would not be deliberating the ethics of a hospitals actions or a jehovas witness' right to martyr their children. Instead I would be dealing with reckless drivers suffering from acute whiplash who copious volumes of wonga so they don't have to work for a year. I couldn't possibly spend the rest of my life doing such monotonous work.

So instead, I've discovered an underlying passion for family law. My calling lies in divorces and child custody. Many view this as a nefarious and dastardly specialisation, it came as a surprise to my family having never gone through the trauma of a divorce myself, luckily no one in my family has ever filed for one. I'm a firm believer that many give up on marriage far too easily and unless there's been adultery or 

abuse then couples should try work through their problems. A man with inferiority complex issues because his wife earns more money than him is not a legitimate reason for divorce. So why would I want to go down this career path? Is it because I like a bit of gossip and want to feel like Jeremy Kyle on a Monday morning? possibly. But the truth is that such a sensitive practice needs someone compassionate yet headstrong, and that's what I am. 

So it was an invaluable learning experience, I gained far too much weight and am now the wrong side of 9stone, I blame the boyfriend for fine dining me but I cannot complain :) But it prevented me from making a huge mistake and going into the wrong practice. I've applied for training contracts in 2013 for a place as a family lawyer. I can see now why firms insist you have experience, how can you know law is the right career for you and what subject really ignites you if you haven't had first hand experience? I just wish more law students could have this chance, it's a poignant and vital opportunity for self understanding and growth that should not be denied to prospective lawyers.